Assessing the quality of scientific research: From result-centrism to the trajectory model

Aim. This work aimed to substantiate the impossibility of assessing the quality of scientific research using a single universal system of indicators and demonstrate that accurate assessment requires an analysis of the interrelationships between the aim, process, and result over time, taking into account the specifics of the research field and the nature of scientific cognition.

Objectives. The work seeks to analyze the limitations of approaches that rely solely on outcomebased quality assessment; to identify the causes of the methodological inconsistency of the result-centric model; to consider the differences between fundamental and applied research that influence the choice of quality indicators and the impossibility of creating a universal system of metrics; to characterize the quality of the scientific research process, including methodological rigor, reproducibility, the specifics of dealing with negative results, and the influence of initial conditions; as well as to substantiate a trajectory model for assessing the quality of scientific research and demonstrate its advantages over linear and one-dimensional assessment systems.

Methods. The study is based on a methodological analysis of the structure of scientific cognition, a comparison of types of results in fundamental and applied fields, a logical and conceptual analysis of research activity, a case study of historical scientific experiments (Michelson-Morley, OPERA, the Manhattan Project, the development of information theory, CRISPR, etc.), and a synthesis of philosophical and scientific-methodological approaches to assessing the quality of science.

Results. The analysis revealed that the quality of scientific research is a multidimensional characteristic, including the aim quality, the process quality, and the result quality, and cannot be adequately expressed through a single universal system of indicators. It was established that the research result, whether positive, negative, or delayed, is not an autonomous criterion of quality and should be assessed solely through the original aim achievement degree and the correctness of the methodological approach. It has been revealed that process quality, determined by the rigorous selection of methods, reproducibility of procedures, and attention to errors and anomalies, can be a more significant indicator of scientific integrity than the apparent success of the result. A trajectory-based model for assessing the research quality is proposed, taking into account initial conditions, nonlinear development, and the specifics of the subject field.

Conclusions. An accurate assessment of the quality of scientific research is possible through the simultaneous analysis of the aim, process, and result as elements of a single research trajectory. Only their mutual consistency allows for an objective assessment of the project scientific value. The trajectory approach provides a more methodologically robust basis for assessing the scientific quality, eliminates false interpretations of «success» and «failure», and enables to adapt the indicator framework to various types of research, including fundamental and applied research. This approach creates the conditions for the development of scientific schools, maintaining methodological rigor, and ensuring a balance between epistemic contribution and practical significance.

1. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520:429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

2. Cagan R. The San Francisco Declaration on research assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms. 2013;6(4):869-870. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955

3. Gostimskaya I. CRISPR-Cas9: A history of its discovery and ethical considerations of its use in genome editing. Biochemistry (Moscow). 2022;87(8):777-788. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006297922080090 (In Russ.: Biokhimiya. 2022;87(8):1118-1131. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0320972522080103).

4. Gosling F.G. The Manhattan Project: Making the atomic bomb. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information; 1994. 76 p.

5. Consoli M., Costanzo E. The Michelson-Morley experiment and the cosmic velocity of the Earth. 2003. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0311054

6. Shankland R.S., McCuskey S.W., Leone F.C., Kuerti G. New analysis of the interferometer observations of Dayton C. Miller. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1955;27(2):167-178. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167

7. Aickin M. The failed experiment that failed to fail. PhilSci Archive. 2025. 22 p. URL: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/27117/1/MichelsonMorley.pdf (accessed on 20.08.2025).

8. Adam T., Agafonova N., Aleksandrov A., et al. Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. 2011. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1109.4897

9. Ter Haar D., ed. Collected papers of L.D. Landau. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1965. 836 p.

10. Lifshits E.M., ed. Landau L.D. Collected works. In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Fizmatlit; 2008. 495 p. (In Russ.).

11. Hall K. The schooling of Lev Landau: The European context of post-revolutionary Soviet theoretical physics. Osiris. 2008;23(1):230-259. https://doi.org/10.1086/591876

12. Gorbashko E.A., Chernen’kii A.V. Improving the performance of scientific and educational institutions. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta. 2017;(1-2):111-117. (In Russ.).

13. Gorbashko E.A. The quality of scientific research in the formation of technological leadership of Russia. In: National concepts of quality: The problem of import substitution and import overtaking in achieving national technological leadership. Proc. 16th Int. sci.-pract. conf. (St. Petersburg, October 17-21, 2025). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Economics; 2025:15-17. (In Russ.).

14. Blauberg I.V., Sadovskii V.N., Yudin E.G., eds. Problems of methodology of systems research. Moscow: Mysl’; 1970. 454 p. (In Russ.).

15. Blauberg I.V., Sadovskii V.N., Yudin E.G. Systems approach: Prerequisites, problems, difficulties. Moscow: Znanie; 1969. 47 p. (In Russ.).

16. Shvyrev V.S., Yudin E.G. Methodological analysis of science: Its essence, main types and forms. Moscow: Znanie; 1980. 64 p. (In Russ.).

17. Okrepilov V.V. Methodology of quality economics in establishing the connection between development, quality of life and the capabilities of the regional management system. In: Metrological support of innovative technologies. Proc. 7th Int. forum (St. Petersburg, March 04, 2025). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation; 2025:68-69. (In Russ.).

18. Krutikov V.N., Okrepilov V.V. Dmitri Mendeleev on the uniformity in weights, measures, and money: An analysis from the perspective of modern metrology. Measurement Techniques. 2025;67(10):734-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-025-02394-6

19. Maksimtsev I.A., Suleimankadieva A.E., Fomicheva N.M., et al. Theory and practice of bioeconomy development: Innovation, digitalization, and transformation. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Economics; 2019. 154 p. (In Russ.).