Search

The number of citations per publication is an established metric to evaluate scientists' research impact. Therefore, it is important for scientists to learn how to potentially increase their publications' citations. This study investigates whether and how the authorship composition regarding research impact, gender diversity, and cultural diversity affect citations of sports economics publications. Data of all sports economics publications in the International Journal of Sport Finance, Journal of Sports Economics, Contemporary Economic Policy, and Economic Inquiry (n = 926; 2006-2020) and their corresponding citations were collected until January 2023. Results of log-linear regressions show an inverse U-shaped effect of the mean h-index and mean citations of coauthors on a publication's citations. The higher the gender and cultural diversity among coauthors, the more citations per publication. These findings suggest that authorship team composition matters and increasing gender and cultural diversity among coauthors can benefit sports economics researchers' citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review paper introduces and explores the Research Impact Quintuple Helix Model, a comprehensive framework designed to analyse and enhance the impact of research across societal, economic, and environmental dimensions. Unlike traditional models focusing on sectoral collaboration for innovation and economic development, this model integrates five critical elements - Research, Publication, Researchers, Institutions, and Countries - offering a holistic approach to understanding research impact. The study systematically examines the dynamic interactions among these elements, emphasising their collective role in fostering collaborative synergies, interdisciplinary research, and effective resource allocation. By aligning research activities with broader societal needs and environmental considerations, the model aims to extend the scope of research impact beyond academic achievements, highlighting the importance of policy alignment, societal engagement, and sustainable practices. Key comparisons with the standard Helix models demonstrate the unique contributions of the research impact quintuple helix model, illustrating its potential to address specific challenges in maximising research benefits. The paper identifies strategic collaborations and policy implications that could significantly enhance the societal benefits of research, advocating for a structured integration of the model's elements into research and policymaking processes. The review concludes by recognising limitations in the existing literature and calling for empirical studies to validate and refine the model. Future research should incorporate quantitative methods to measure the impact effectively, aiming to transform theoretical insights into actionable strategies for a sustainable and impactful research ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This conceptual paper scrutinises the 'research impact' of the impact agenda by Western governments, in terms of what it is doing to the research process as a whole. Tourism studies with its specific intricacies and disputed disciplinary status represents the focal point, but the argument extends to the entire research ecosystem as a whole. In specific, the paper addresses changes to the training regime of early career researchers. The created survivor bias of impact claims becomes the basis of scholarly career progression. How the accounting and narrating of research impact claims represents a new workload requirement for scholars. The challenges in identifying and articulating impact claims in the first place, and last but not least, the power dimension and political conflicts that arise in who has the authority to label impact claims as beneficial in the first place. The paper's discussion focuses on the short, medium and long-term consequences of these changes to the scholarly lives. With the conclusion, that whilst the created vulnerabilities to the authority of [tourism] research claims are real, such developments also represents a viable opportunity to reassess, revalue and acknowledge parts of the research process that were normalised and/or trivialised in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership is the property of International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership (Center for Education Policy) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Forestry Chronicle is the property of Canadian Institute of Forestry and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Participatory research has been shown to affect change in participants, but limited attention has been paid to impact pathways beyond traditional research subjects. This critical gap in the literature is addressed by analysing the impacts of a community engagement for disaster risk reduction case study on its research assistants. The findings demonstrate that undertaking participatory research affects research assistants, changing their risk reduction intentions, perceptions, and behaviours. Research assistants report that these effects 'spillover' to affect their social networks and wider communities. Finally, these effects are seen to 'spill back over' to benefit the research project and wider research culture. Framing these findings through research on social capital, social learning, and 'spillover' effects, this case study traces an ideal participatory impact pathway through research assistants, wherein participation: fosters cognitive learning, influences normative positions, translates into altered relations, supports altered behaviours, and 'spills over' to affect non-participants. By identifying how participatory disaster risk reduction research may be generating more diverse effects than previously assumed, including how involvement in participatory research may be an effective impact pathway in itself, this research offers new empirical and theoretical insights into how public participation works and how it might contribute to transformational change. By presenting a methodological template that can be developed and reapplied in both disaster risk reduction and wider contexts, this case study ultimately encourages and justifies wider interdisciplinary uptake and investment in 'costly-yet-impactful' participatory methods. • Participatory research is a dialogic relationship that generates multi-directional and multivalent impacts. • Effects on research assistants reportedly 'spillover' to affect their social networks through discussion and collective action. • Research assistants gain professional and interpersonal skills that 'spill back over' to further benefit interdisciplinary research practices and cultures. • Research assistants experience cognitive, normative, and relational learning. • Non-traditional impact pathways help justify investment in 'costly yet beneficial' participatory methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Documentación Científica is the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An ongoing conversation in the Information Systems literature addresses the concern, “How can we conduct research that makes a difference?” A shortage of high-impact research will, over time, challenge the identity and weaken the viability of IS as an academic discipline. This paper presents the systematic high-impact research model (SHIR), an approach to conducting high-impact research. SHIR embodies the insight gained from three streams of high-impact research programs spanning more than 50 years. The SHIR framework rests on the proposition that IS researchers can produce higher-impact contributions by developing long-term research programs around major real-world issues, as opposed to ad hoc projects addressing a small piece of a large problem. These persistent research programs focus on addressing the entirety of an issue, by leveraging multidisciplinary, multiuniversity research centers that employ a breadth of research methods and large-scale projects. To function effectively, SHIR programs must be sustained by academic and practitioner partnerships, research centers, and outreach activities. We argue that SHIR research programs increase the likelihood of high impact research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Examined titles, abstracts, conclusions of research papers by highly ranked authors. • Analyzed readability, lexical density, lexical diversity, and coherence. • Highly-cited articles tend to be more complex to read. • Minimal difference in lexical frequency and coherence between high, low citation papers. • Abstract readability, Total references exhibit a positive association with citation values. The Scholar's success is indicated by the number of citations it received for its publication. Examining the correlation between the linguistic attributes of scholarly publications and their scientific influence holds significant importance. This study analyzed 1000 research papers by highly ranked authors from computer science and electronics backgrounds. The title, abstract, and conclusion sections of the paper were analyzed. This study utilizes readability, lexical diversity, lexical density, syntactic features, and coherence measures to establish the correlation between citations and the textual content of an article. The characteristics of the publication were evaluated in relation to its research impact, which was classified into two categories, high citations and low citations. Additionally, the influence of various aspects on citations was assessed through the utilisation of the negative binomial regression model, ordinary least square model, and spearman correlation. This analysis took into account the characteristics of length and structure. The results highlight a clear positive link between abstract readability, and number of references with increased citations. Additionally, each additional page contributes to a 0.2 % increase in citation count. However, the number of diagrams and conclusion readability show no significant connection with citations. Factors like title length, abstract length, and conclusion length also exhibit associations, though with slightly lower percentages. The results indicate that linguistic characteristics exert a limited impact on the acquisition of citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Survey vice chairs of research from academic radiology departments on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on research activities. The survey asked respondents to quantify changes in research performed during the shutdown and ramp-up, relative to pre–COVID-19 levels. Respondents estimated research activity changes by overall research type (wet, instrumentation, or core facilities: prospective non–COVID-19 clinical research and computational laboratories) and then by the research activity type (data analysis, grant or manuscript writing, clinician involvement, summer student participation, and international research fellow appointments).The χ2 test was used for comparison between shutdown and ramp-up, with Yates correction when necessary. Of 105 vice chairs contacted, 46 (43.8%) responded. For 95.5%, wet, instrumentation, or core facilities research decreased to ≤50% during shutdown and for 83.3% during ramp-up (P <.0001). In addition, 89.2% and 46.5% indicated reduction to ≤25% of non–COVID-19 clinical research during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P <.0001). Only computational research increased to 120% during shutdown (39.5%) or ramp-up (50%) (P =.8984). For data analysis from closed laboratories, 75% and 86% showed decreased activity during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P =.28). Increased grant writing during shutdown and ramp-up was reported by 45.5% and 23.3% (P =.093). For 52.3% and 23.3%, manuscript writing and submission increased during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P <.02). Clinician research involvement trended toward relative decreases during shutdown (84.1% versus 60.5%, P =.05). There was similar drop in summer student participation (shutdown: 86.4%, ramp-up: 83.7%, P =.95) and international researcher appointment (shutdown: 85.7%, ramp-up: 86.1%; P =.96). Many radiology research activities diminished during the COVID-19 shutdown and to a lesser extent during the ramp-up. Activities that could be done remotely, such as computational analysis and grant and manuscript writing and submission, increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Survey vice chairs of research from academic radiology departments on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on research activities.Methods: The survey asked respondents to quantify changes in research performed during the shutdown and ramp-up, relative to pre-COVID-19 levels. Respondents estimated research activity changes by overall research type (wet, instrumentation, or core facilities: prospective non-COVID-19 clinical research and computational laboratories) and then by the research activity type (data analysis, grant or manuscript writing, clinician involvement, summer student participation, and international research fellow appointments).The χ2 test was used for comparison between shutdown and ramp-up, with Yates correction when necessary.Results: Of 105 vice chairs contacted, 46 (43.8%) responded. For 95.5%, wet, instrumentation, or core facilities research decreased to ≤50% during shutdown and for 83.3% during ramp-up (P < .0001). In addition, 89.2% and 46.5% indicated reduction to ≤25% of non-COVID-19 clinical research during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .0001). Only computational research increased to 120% during shutdown (39.5%) or ramp-up (50%) (P = .8984). For data analysis from closed laboratories, 75% and 86% showed decreased activity during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P = .28). Increased grant writing during shutdown and ramp-up was reported by 45.5% and 23.3% (P = .093). For 52.3% and 23.3%, manuscript writing and submission increased during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .02). Clinician research involvement trended toward relative decreases during shutdown (84.1% versus 60.5%, P = .05). There was similar drop in summer student participation (shutdown: 86.4%, ramp-up: 83.7%, P = .95) and international researcher appointment (shutdown: 85.7%, ramp-up: 86.1%; P = .96).Conclusion: Many radiology research activities diminished during the COVID-19 shutdown and to a lesser extent during the ramp-up. Activities that could be done remotely, such as computational analysis and grant and manuscript writing and submission, increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Introduction: Surgical researchers seek to publish their findings in esteemed surgical journals to advance science and their careers. A detailed investigation of study and manuscript attributes in a specific research area, like pancreatic neoplasia, may yield informative insights for researchers looking to maximize research impact. Objectives: We analyzed publications related to pancreatic surgery primarily focused on pancreatic and periampullary tumors to identify elements associated with acceptance into high impact journals and a high likelihood of future citations. Methods: A comprehensive review of nine surgical journals was performed between 2010 and 2019. Journals were grouped based on impact factor into high (>3), medium (1–3), and low (<1) impact categories. Each publication was annotated to identify study topic, methodology, and statistical approach. Findings were compared according to journal impact and number of citations to identify predictors of success across these 2 domains. Results: A total of 1044 out of 21,536 (4.8%) articles published in the index journals were related to pancreatic tumors. The most common focus of study was perioperative outcomes and complications (46.7%). There was significantly more number of authors, participating institutions, countries, and randomized clinical trials in higher impact journals as well as high-cited articles (P < 0.05). Although advanced statistical analysis was used more commonly in high-impact journals (P < 0.05), it did not translate to higher citations (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Pancreatic neoplasia continues to be extensively studied in surgical literature. Specific elements of study methodology and design were identified as potentially key attributes to acceptance in high impact journals and citation success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As anthropogenic pressures on the environment grow, science-policy interaction is increasingly needed to support evidence-informed decision-making. However, there are many barriers to knowledge exchange (KE) at the science-policy interface, including difficulties evaluating its outcomes. The aims of this study are to synthesize the literature to elucidate the a) intended and b) claimed outcomes of KE processes at the interface of environmental science and policy, as well as the c) evidence used to evaluate them and d) methods used for collecting evaluation data. Results from systematically identifying and analyzing 397 articles show that co-production, knowledge brokerage, boundary organizations, and social connections were the most common strategies for KE. KE processes commonly aimed, claimed and referred to evidence regarding the usability of knowledge (e.g. credibility, salience, legitimacy) and social outcomes (e.g. networking, awareness, learning, trust-building). They also aimed for deeper policy/economic/societal impacts and actual use of scientific knowledge within decision-making. These additional goals, however, were seldom claimed to have been achieved, although products (e.g. maps/tools) and process attributes (e.g. equity, power-relations, transparency) were commonly used for evidencing impact. Hence, this study found that success from KE at the interface of environmental science and policy comes in diverse forms and showed a divergence between what studies aim for (ambitious) and what they evidence or claim as an achievement (more modest). This may represent failures of KE processes to reach intended goals, shortcomings in evaluation literature/approaches, or mismatches between timescales of evaluation and impact. Overall, this suggests a need to better align goals with evaluation measures to plan, facilitate, and appreciate the diverse impacts of KE processes. [Display omitted] • Our review aims to understand success at the environmental science-policy interface. • Success at the science-policy interface comes in very diverse forms. • Usability of knowledge and/or social outcomes are most common goals. • Divergence between what studies aim for and what they evidence/claim as impact. • Results show need to plan for, and appreciate diverse impacts of knowledge exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Trust is a critical pre-condition for achieving evidence-informed policy. • Trust is highly dynamic and fragile, and takes time to be built. • We identify 14 strategies and associated actions for building trust. • We outline a five steps for repairing trust, in cases where it has been compromised. • These results can assist scientists and research institutions to build trusting relationship with decision-makers. Trust is a critical precondition underpinning successful knowledge exchange among environmental scientists and decision-makers, and thus, evidence-informed decision-making processes. While the importance of trust is well established, however, specific approaches to building, managing and maintaining trust at the interface of environmental science and policy are lacking. Here, we seek to address this gap empirically via in-depth qualitative analysis, using the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a case study. Specifically, through interviews with members of the ICES secretariat and scientific community, this study aims to (i) explore the importance of trust for organisations working at the interface of environmental science and policy, (ii) identify a range of strategies that are available for building trust at the interface of science and policy, and (iii) identify specific mechanisms for trust repair in situations where trust has been compromised. Our results show that trust is an essential component of a successful relationship between environmental science and policy, although highly dynamic and fragile. For example, while considerable time and effort is required to build trust, it can be lost in only a matter of days. Further, our results show that for successful knowledge exchange, and the attainment of research impact, trust is needed on three levels: (i) trust in individuals, (ii) trust in the organisation, and (iii) trust in the process by which knowledge is generated and exchanged. We identify 14 strategies to building trust, including the need for transparency, the importance of not advocating for a specific outcome, having a clear process for developing and providing knowledge/advice, having regular contact (preferably face to face) and being able to demonstrate independence. Finally, we identify five steps to repair trust: (i) Do not become defensive, be honest that a mistake has occurred, (ii) identify, and explain, why the mistake occurred, (iii) implement measures to ensure that the mistake does not happen again, (iv) correct the mistake (e.g. by providing updated knowledge/advice), and (v) give the trust re-building process time, and ensure ongoing face to face contact throughout that time. In presenting these insights from ICES, this study seeks to provide practical and implementable strategies that can be used by environmental scientists and/or research institutions to help them foster trust with decision-makers, enable improved knowledge exchange and build capacity for evidence-informed decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A framework combining machine learning models and SHAP to interpret how peer review improves the research impact. • The importance of key linguistic, sentiment, and peer review features from peer review reports in determining the scientific significance of papers. • Valuable insights for authors to improve the quality of work and increase academic influence by paying closer attention to peer review characteristics. • Textual features of peer review reports play an important role in predicting post-publication scientific impact. Peer review is crucial in improving the quality and reliability of scientific research. However, the mechanisms through which peer review practices ensure papers become top-cited papers (TCPs) after publication are not well understood. In this study, by collecting a data set containing 13, 066 papers published between 2016 and 2020 from Nature communications with open peer review reports, we aim to examine how textual features embedded within the peer review reports of papers that reflect the reviewers' emotions may predict the papers to be TCPs. We compiled a list of 15 textual features and classified them into three categories: peer review features, linguistic features, and sentiment features. We then chose the XGBoost machine learning model with the best performance in predicting TCPs, and utilized the explainable artificial intelligence techniques SHAP to interpret the role of feature importance on the prediction results. The distribution of feature importance ranking results demonstrates that sentiment features play a crucial role in determining papers' potential to be highly cited. This conclusion still holds, even when the ranking of the feature importance changes in the subgroup analysis of dividing the samples into four disciplines (biological sciences, health sciences, physical sciences, and earth and environmental sciences), as well as two groups based on whether reviewers' identities were revealed. This research emphasizes the textual features retrieved from peer review reports that play role in improving manuscript quality can predict the post-publication research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometric analyses are commonly used to measure the productivity of researchers or institutions but rarely used to assess the scientific contribution of national surveys/datasets. We applied bibliometric methods to quantify the contributions of the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) and the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN) to the body of pediatric health-related research. We also examined dissemination to nonresearch audiences by analyzing media coverage of statistics and research produced from the surveys. We conducted a search of the Web of Science database to identify peer-reviewed articles related to the NSCH and NS-CSHCN published between 2002 and 2019. We summarized information about citation counts, publishing journals, key research areas, and institutions using the surveys. We used the Lexis Advance database Nexis to assess media coverage. The publication set included 716 NSCH/NS-CSHCN journal articles published between 2002 and June 2019. These publications have in turn been cited 22,449 times, including in 1614 review articles. Over 180 journals have published NSCH/NS-CSHCN articles, and the most commonly covered research areas are in pediatrics; public, environmental and occupational health; psychology; and health care sciences and services. Over 500 institutions have used NSCH/NS-CSHCN data to publish journal articles, and over 950 news media articles have cited statistics or research produced by the surveys. NSCH/NS-CSHCN data are widely used by government, academic, and media institutions. Bibliometric methods provide a systematic approach to quantify and describe the contributions to the scientific literature made possible with these data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Documentación Científica is the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Investment into research is a vital key to positively impacting on society. Research policies are the instruments which prescribe the direction in which the funding flows. This article shows how South African researchers have responded to the Ten-Year Innovation Plan (TYIP) of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), particularly in light of identified areas of specialisation. It discusses the specialisation among the universities in the country. It comments on the problems with metrics relating to research output in an attempt to explain why South Africa has not shown the desired output. The activity index, which shows the relative specialisation of a country or a university, was used as the primary metric to evaluate the effectiveness of the TYIP. Publication counts were drawn from Web of Science. It was found that South Africa fell short of the goal expressed in the TYIP. In areas of specialisation, the five Grand Challenges showed varying changes: from a decrease in "global change science with a focus on climate change" to a significant increase in "human and social dynamics". Universities in South Africa are shown to be multi-focused in their research. Drawing from the literature, this article provides five possible explanations as to why the output was not at the expected level. The use of the activity index as a tool to evaluate policy does not give a full picture of the impact of research. This article provides suggestions for future policymakers and researchers on the development of a more appropriate method of evaluating research policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SCI mago is the Journal and Country Ranking database available freely on the internet. We have accessed the required data from 2008 to 2017 from this database and evaluated the research productivity of SAARC countries and citations in the field of social science subject. This article studied SAARC countries publications, citations, citations per document, selfcitations and degree of self - citations. The study revealed that on an average 6054 articles are published during the study period. India is the only country to publish more than the average citations publications during the ten years of study. India received 78% of citations and stood 1st rank in the study, whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh got 8% and 6% citations and stood 2nd and 3rd rank. Nepal got highest 76% of citations per document and stood 1st rank among the SAARC countries in the last ten years from 2008 to 2017. Further, it is found that the degree of self-citation is 0.24, which is very lowest. Since all the SAARC countries are underdeveloped so it is suggested that the government of SAARC countries has to encourage more and more publications, then only their socio-economic level may increase. Individuals, as well as organisations, should take more interest to publish their research articles in high impact journals both at national and international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study assesses highly cited research works in the area Business, Management and Accounting retrieving data from Scopus database for the period 1998-2017. It found total 49417 publications which received 769676 citations. The study identifies about one third (32.88%) of papers have remained uncited during the period. Among rest, papers' having one citation (10.60%) is higher. It is inferred from the analysis that older publications get more citations. Indian citation distribution is almost similar with global citation distribution pattern. The study identifies Cranfield University of UK has greater impact. International collaboration brings higher citations and Netherlands has higher citation per paper (27.33) due to its international collaborative research. Besides, language may be a barrier of research communication. Clusters and the new is highly cited paper. Out of top ten highly cited research papers, six papers are single authored and two papers have international collaboration. Maximum authors are from USA. Harvard business review is the quality journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a multi-case design, this study draws on empirical evidence and literature to analyze the knowledge mobilization approaches in educational organizations. The sample consists of four different types of education organizations in Ontario, Canada: a school board, a university, a not-for-profit, and a professional association. Data sources include publicly available websites and documents (n = 63) and key informant interviews (n = 18). Although research impact was operationalized and observed differently in these organizations, measures of impact were found to be ineffectual in all cases. This article validates the findings of existing studies that have found that there are limited instrumental uses of research, wherein research directly influences policy and practice decisions. The study calls for a careful discernment and applicability of research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research impact is emerging as a common feature in national research systems. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) includes efforts undertaken to aid and accelerate research impact pathways by directing focus to processes that support impact. To date, researchers and universities have struggled to increase their capacity in KMb. This study explores the perceptions held by 16 leaders of Research Impact Canada, representing 14 networked universities, about the usefulness and use of networked learning to build institutional capacity in KMb. The analysis of data, which was collected using a mixed-methods survey design, highlights two overarching themes: 1) the contextual variability in how institutions engage in KMb work, and how practice- based subgroups can support the diverse KMb needs of different institutions; and 2) how capacity is developed through networked learning is distributed among individuals and groups within institutions, and how networked institutions need to be self-referential to the ways knowledge about KMb is sourced, validated, shared, interpreted, and employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research-practice-partnerships (RPPs) have arisen as a potentially powerful mechanism for school improvement; however, there is little work how to evaluate RPPs. This study investigates how four RPPs are addressing impact by a) document analysis of metrics (N = 123) being used to assess partnerships, and b) interviews exploring how network leads (N = 11) and policymakers (N = 3) conceptualize partnerships and their impact on the frontlines. Findings suggest that while metrics being used provide a necessary baseline for the number and types of partnerships, more robust methods are needed to capture the quality of interactions and to strategically inform network development. The discussion advocates for network improvement through sharing cases of failures (alongside exemplary cases) to maximize learning, and for the use of developmental evaluation to explore the impacts of RPPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research impact is increasingly a global issue, yet it is still emerging in the context of U.S. education. This article synthesizes insights on this issue from key thought leaders in various roles in the U.S. education system, including their perspectives on defining, motivating, measuring, and supporting research impact. These insights offer the conceptual framing for this special issue of the International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership (IJEPL) and highlight several themes and tensions associated with research impact. The call for articles focused on these insights, which are addressed in the pieces that constitute this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, an analysis of 806 highly cited articles was carried out based on the data retrieved from SCOPUS multidisciplinary database on 'Coronavirus' research published during 1970-2019 and 2020. The term 'Coronavirus' was used to retrieve data from the fields - title, abstract & keyword. Further, an analysis was carried out for the citation life cycle of the highly cited articles, performance of authors, institutions, country, and journals. During the period a total of 18,116 articles published up to 2019; and 1221 articles published in 2020 till 30 March 2020. The articles with more than 100 citations were taken as highly cited articles in coronavirus research. On this basis, there were 806 articles with more than 100 citations and considered for the data analysis. The highly cited articles were mostly published from the USA. The 'Journal of Virology' was most productive journal publishing most of the highly cited articles. These highly cited articles were published between 1973 to 2016. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong was the most productive institute, published most number of highly cited articles. Kwok Yung Yuen from the University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen was the most productive author, who has published most number of highly cited articles. The seven articles had shown 'sleeping beauty' characteristics in citation trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research showed that Indonesia produced the highest number of papers in biodiversity among three mega-diverse Southeast Asia countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines. However, among them Indonesia papers received the smallest number of citation. This research aims to identify and compare the characteristics of Indonesian biodiversity papers to Malaysia and Philippines. Firstly, the paper reviewed a set of papers collected from Scopus systematically to find factors for making highly cited articles. Then, the paper applied the factors to find various reasons of low citations. Resulting showed that there are 12 aspects to produce articles highly cited, namely Funding; Number of articles; Subject; Journal; Authorship; Collaborator; Methodology; Pages, tables, illustrations and References; Editorial Factor; Language; Source type; and Getting Award. This paper provides a receipt to Indonesian researchers in creating articles that are potential to be highly cited articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research-practice-partnerships (RPPs) have arisen as a potentially powerful mechanism for school improvement; however, there is little work how to evaluate RPPs. This study investigates how four RPPs are addressing impact by a) document analysis of metrics (N = 123) being used to assess partnerships, and b) interviews exploring how network leads (N = 11) and policymakers (N = 3) conceptualize partnerships and their impact on the frontlines. Findings suggest that while metrics being used provide a necessary baseline for the number and types of partnerships, more robust methods are needed to capture the quality of interactions and to strategically inform network development. The discussion advocates for network improvement through sharing cases of failures (alongside exemplary cases) to maximize learning, and for the use of developmental evaluation to explore the impacts of RPPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a multi-case design, this study draws on empirical evidence and literature to analyze the knowledge mobilization approaches in educational organizations. The sample consists of four different types of education organizations in Ontario, Canada: a school board, a university, a not-for-profit, and a professional association. Data sources include publicly available websites and documents (n = 63) and key informant interviews (n = 18). Although research impact was operationalized and observed differently in these organizations, measures of impact were found to be ineffectual in all cases. This article validates the findings of existing studies that have found that there are limited instrumental uses of research, wherein research directly influences policy and practice decisions. The study calls for a careful discernment and applicability of research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research impact is emerging as a common feature in national research systems. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) includes efforts undertaken to aid and accelerate research impact pathways by directing focus to processes that support impact. To date, researchers and universities have struggled to increase their capacity in KMb. This study explores the perceptions held by 16 leaders of Research Impact Canada, representing 14 networked universities, about the usefulness and use of networked learning to build institutional capacity in KMb. The analysis of data, which was collected using a mixed-methods survey design, highlights two overarching themes: 1) the contextual variability in how institutions engage in KMb work, and how practice-based subgroups can support the diverse KMb needs of different institutions; and 2) how capacity is developed through networked learning is distributed among individuals and groups within institutions, and how networked institutions need to be self-referential to the ways knowledge about KMb is sourced, validated, shared, interpreted, and employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research impact is emerging as a common feature in national research systems. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) includes efforts undertaken to aid and accelerate research impact pathways by directing focus to processes that support impact. To date, researchers and universities have struggled to increase their capacity in KMb. This study explores the perceptions held by 16 leaders of Research Impact Canada, representing 14 networked universities, about the usefulness and use of networked learning to build institutional capacity in KMb. The analysis of data, which was collected using a mixed-methods survey design, highlights two overarching themes: 1) the contextual variability in how institutions engage in KMb work, and how practice- based subgroups can support the diverse KMb needs of different institutions; and 2) how capacity is developed through networked learning is distributed among individuals and groups within institutions, and how networked institutions need to be self-referential to the ways knowledge about KMb is sourced, validated, shared, interpreted, and employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Annals of Tourism Research is a social sciences journal, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2024. It holds a unique position in the field of tourism research and this article presents a discussion between its founding editor, Professor Jafar Jafari and one of its current co-editors, Professor Scott McCabe about its origins and emergence. The discussion covers the context and motivations for setting out the journal with a social sciences orientation, the ways that tourism research has expanded and developed as well as looks forward to the future, outlining a series of issues and topics that could be addressed in the coming decades to keep tourism research relevant and having impact on the industry and policy. • Presents a discussion on the context in which Annals of Tourism Research emerged. • Discusses the development of social sciences research in tourism. • Debates the current role of publishing research in tourism. • Outlines a future research agenda for tourism social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exceedingly competitive climate of academia has increased the emphasis on performance-based research funding. In this paper we evaluate the UK's government assessment of research impact and critically comment upon the implications for future research conduct. The key findings are as follows; firstly we provide a summary of UK tourism research impact. Secondly, we demonstrate the effect of the resulting significance gap, and comment upon the consequences of the Research Excellence Frameworks' (REF) research impact assessment in terms of a research culture change. Lastly, we proposition that the current assessment structure can have negative long-term consequences in that key issues facing tourism fall outside 'good' research impact. • The REF 2014 assessment influenced what is considered good UK research impact. • The assessed research had little impact on some of the big tourism challenges. • The research impact disciplinary mechanism is enacting its own value structure. • The emergent value structure focuses on safe, simple and tellable impacts. • Such pragmatic conduct may have long-term negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• There are non-systematic disciplinary differences in the extent to which six standard article sections contain citations. • Articles cited by one of the six standard sections are often cited by at least one other standard section. • Introduction and Methods section citations may give relatively unique evidence of impact type. • Section names are not always reliable indicators of the type of citation they contain. • Counting citations by section gives substantially different rank orders than traditional citation counts. Articles are cited for different purposes and differentiating between reasons when counting citations may therefore give finer-grained citation count information. Although identifying and aggregating the individual reasons for each citation may be impractical, recording the number of citations that originate from different article sections might illuminate the general reasons behind a citation count (e.g., 110 citations = 10 Introduction citations + 100 Methods citations). To help investigate whether this could be a practical and universal solution, this article compares 19 million citations with DOIs from six different standard sections in 799,055 PubMed Central open access articles across 21 out of 22 fields. There are apparently non-systematic differences between fields in the most citing sections and the extent to which citations from one section overlap with citations from another, with some degree of overlap in most cases. Thus, at a science-wide level, section headings are partly unreliable indicators of citation context, even if they are more standard within individual fields. They may still be used within fields to help identify individual highly cited articles that have had one type of impact, especially methodological (Methods) or context setting (Introduction), but expert judgement is needed to validate the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Novel impact metrics based on graph density. • Impact evaluation on large data sample. • Novel results not correlated with established metrics • Validation with commonly accepted ground-truth information. Traditionally, citation count has served as the main evaluation measure for a paper's importance and influence. In turn, many evaluations of authors, institutions and journals are based on aggregations upon papers (e.g. h-index). In this work, we explore measures defined on the citation graph that offer a more intuitive insight into the impact of a paper than the superficial count of citations. Our main argument is focused on the identification of influence as an expression of the citation density in the subgraph of citations built for each paper. We propose two measures that capitalize on the notion of density providing researchers alternative evaluations of their work. While the general idea of impact for a paper can be viewed as how many researchers have shown interest to a piece of work, the proposed measures are based on the hypothesis that a piece of work may have influenced some papers even if they do not contain references to that piece of work. The proposed measures are also extended to researchers and journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, the structure of co-authorship networks was analyzed using the Macro-level and Micro-level Approach. The study also examined the relationship between centrality measures and citation performance. The research reported here favors a bibliometric approach aiming to visualize the co-authorship networks building on the network analysis method. The population of the research consisted of 24308 authors of the indexed papers in the WOS database. To collect the data pertaining to the citation performance of a given researcher, the articles the given researchers published in a period of three years were taken into account. The citation data (excluding the self-citation) of a given article were gathered considering a three-year lapse after its publication. The results suggested that the mean of co-authorship for each article was 2.8 authors and the ratio of co-authored articles to single-authored was 89.4%. Also, this said co-authorship network was a network of “small world” and lacked “scale”. The achieved findings illustrated that any increase in the rate of centrality and betweenness centrality of articles led to an increase in the amount of received citations. That said, no significant relationship was found between closeness centrality and the amount of received citations in this area. In this period, the variable of closeness centrality was able to predict the significance for the citation performance of the researchers with Beta coefficient of 0.289 (p> 0.000). Therefore, it is safe to say that researchers’ citations performance was affected by betweenness centrality measures and this measure played a pivotal role in the researchers’ citation performance at this period of time. Although in a coauthoring network occupying a central position by the researcher, it is of strategic importance in terms of its proximity but it does not necessarily improve his performance. A definitive commentary on the relation between interstitial centrality and citation performance, more research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers are increasingly required to be accountable for research findings and demonstrating outputs from research findings. A review of occupational therapy research promotes the use of impact assessments to make visible research outcomes (Sainty, 2013). However, not all impacts are visible to those who are trying to balance the management of clinical services, along with delivering research and enabling clinical academic careers. Nationally and internationally research organisations are increasingly demanding researchers to be open, accountable and transparent in demonstrating the value research adds to healthcare organisations and the way the research impacts are reported are increasingly scrutinised. To capture research impacts we need to have a suitable measure which provides meaningful data for the context and type of project. Research impact frameworks enable organisations and researchers to tell their research impact stories by providing a systematic structure for organising evidence, achievements and case studies. This editorial shares the experience of developing a research impact tool for capturing research impacts within an organisation and discusses the importance of using research impact tools to amplify and elevate outcomes of clinical research in occupational therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We assess the impact of scientific articles supported by French competitive grants. • We use probabilistic matching to compare grant-funded and non-grant-funded articles. • Articles supported by competitive grants receive more citations in the long run. • We find heterogeneity in the effect of grant funding on citations across fields. Policymakers are interested in assessing the effectiveness of the competitive grant funding model in producing impactful research. In the French context, we compare the impact of scientific articles supported by competitive grants with the impact of articles not supported by grants using a probabilistic matching procedure. We rely on publication acknowledgments to retrieve funding information and on citation data to assess the articles' impact. We find that articles supported by competitive grants receive more citations than articles not supported by grants in the long run, while the difference is not significant in the short run. We find heterogeneity across fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a performance-based research funding system that was introduced in 2014. REF is a process of expert review in universities which assesses the quality and reach of research across higher education. It highlights areas of excellence, benchmarks the quality of previously funded research and provides accountability for ongoing public investment in research. In addition to assessing the quality of research outputs and the environment in which research is undertaken, the REF became the first exercise to evaluate the impact of research outside of academia. This article specifically addresses the impact component of the REF, explaining what is understood by the term 'impact' and considering how impact is gaining significance within the REF framework as a measure of research excellence. It also reflects on the complexities of measuring impact and ongoing resistance from academics to the impact agenda, which they believe threatens academic freedom and appears only to value research that generates specific outcomes. In order to address these and other issues arising from the first-ever assessment of impact in REF 2014, institutions were consulted on the proposed guidance for the REF 2021 submission. The final REF 2021 guidance has sought to provide clearer detail on interpretations of impact and its underpinning research in order to reassure researchers that their academic freedom will not come under threat. However, this process still fails to capture other impactful research being undertaken across institutions, which falls outside of the strict REF criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social & Economic Studies is the property of University of the West Indies - Mona and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines how research impact is defined, measured, and generated - with a view to understanding how it can be enhanced within heritage conservation. It examines what is meant by ‘impact’ and how it can be promoted within heritage science through effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Following a general examination of the current discourse concerning research impact, the study examined: (i) active research networks within heritage science; (ii) research planning and evaluation practices within heritage science; and (iii) the experiences of users (i.e. conservators and other heritage professionals) within research collaborations. Terminologies surrounding the notion of impact and the various phases of the research process were reviewed - from the initial identification of a knowledge gap to the eventual application of new findings in practice. Next, the reach and diversity of research collaborations (as identified through publication co-authorship) were studied to characterise the inter-disciplinary nature of heritage science and its connectedness to users. Findings showed substantial growth in international research collaborations over recent years, predominantly involving academic- and research-oriented institutions - although the engagement of heritage institutions has proportionally decreased. In addition, a worldwide survey of institutional planning and evaluation practices revealed a general reliance on processes driven by the interests of researchers - the systematic consideration of stakeholder opinion and evaluation of research outcomes being less common. Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews with senior heritage professionals explored their experience of collaborative research. The results identified key areas where strategic support is needed to promote user participation and enhance impact. These include training for research readiness, engagement, and impact for both researchers and users; better methods for needs and outcome assessment; affordable open access options and greater diversity of knowledge exchange opportunities. Finally, the need for ethical guidelines for responsible research, and greater emphasis on non-academic impact within research rating systems are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental and conservation scientists are increasingly being asked to justify their work in terms of benefits to society. This article describes economic theory for conceptualizing the benefits from environmental research, and provides a framework for estimating those benefits. In particular we discuss the evaluation of environmental science that is intended to benefit society through informing policy decisions. The chain between environmental research and its benefits through policy change includes at least four links: the research itself, policy change, behavior change and environmental change. Each of these four stages presents challenges and entails time lags. If any link fails, the chain breaks. The standard economic model of supply and demand, which is used to quantify benefits from research into market goods, can be adapted for application to environmental goods. Improved conceptualization and measurement of benefits from environmental research would assist environmental scientists to: (1) select research topics that are likely to deliver large environmental benefits; (2) design their research in a way that will increase its relevance, usefulness and potential impact on policy and, ultimately, the environment; and (3) make the case for funding particular research proposals. It could assist research agencies or research funders to: prioritize proposed research; make a case for increased funding for environmental research; and identify obstacles to the translation of research into environmental impacts, allowing attention to be focused on addressing these bottlenecks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research synthesis is the integration of existing knowledge and research findings pertinent to an issue. The aim of synthesis is to increase the generality and applicability of those findings and to develop new knowledge through the process of integration. Synthesis is promoted as an approach that deals with the challenge of öinformation overload’, delivering products that further our understanding of problems and distil relevant evidence for decision-making. However, despite the increasing prominence of synthesis efforts in the science and policy landscape, we know very little about the impacts these initiatives have on research, policy and practice and the assumptions underpinning how they will lead to change. This paper presents a framework for considering the conceptual, strategic, instrumental and network-based impacts of research synthesis on policy. This framework provides insight into the range of underlying assumptions and impacts on policy and practice from 10 case studies of research synthesis related to contemporary sustainability challenges. Findings suggest that research synthesis is having diverse impacts on research, policy and practice including creating a new understanding of problems, establishing new networks, and contributing to changes in policy and practice. These impacts emerged across a range of contexts, synthesis methods, assumptions and operating models. This suggests that there is no single öcorrect way’ to design research synthesis for impact, but rather a need to tailor the approach for the context of intended use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dyslexia (commonly known as word blindness) is a cognitive (learning) disorder characterised by an impaired ability to comprehend written and printed words or phrases despite of intact vision. A quantitative literature analysis was carried out on learning disorder - dyslexia from 1967 to 2016 (50 Year) for assessing the global research trends. The emphasis has been given to analyse the research progress in dyslexia using bibliometric methods. This literature-based study was carried out with the documents retrieved from the Scopus. There were 13455 articles on Dyslexia in SCOPUS, distributed in nine document types and twenty eight languages. These literature were grown at 6 per cent annually. Of ninety eight countries, USA shared highest contribution. India ranked 20th in terms of total publication. The most of the research areas are centered towards psychology, learning ability and linguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this research was to determine the macro-topological structure and the relationship between citation performance and centrality measures of co-authorship social networks of countries in the field of Nuclear Science and Technology from 2008 to 2010. The present study applied the network analysis method in order to visualize co-authorship networks. Hypothesized relationships were tested using the authors of 24,308 documents cited in the Web of Science. Data relevant to citation performance of a country was based on the articles published by the researchers of the country in a three-year period and the citation data of articles were collected two years after their publication. The investigation of co-authorship social network in the field of Nuclear Science and Technology revealed that the countries which are members of a Nuclear Club hold a prominent position in the network and their influence or power in the network is greater than other countries. Having characteristics like short mean path length, low network diameter (less than or equal to 6) and relatively high clustering coefficient, this network is regarded as a Small World Network. The results of testing the research hypotheses indicated that as the value of centrality of countries rise, the citation performance of researchers in that country is also improved. The analysis of variance confirmed the validity of stepwise regression analysis in predicting the citation performance of researchers (F=816.958 and p>0.000) and through three steps, three components including degree centrality, beta centrality and flow betweenness centrality were concluded to have multiple correlation with citation performance of researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the total number of citations as the sole indicator of a research paper’s success is not always correct. Furthermore, considering the total number of reads (downloads, views, and usage) is not always correct either. Therefore, this paper proposes a new measure called paper impact effectiveness (PIE) that combines both indicators to evaluate the impact of research papers in order to provide a more realistic and fair indicator. Therefore, the total number of downloads for the most popular papers, selected from a single journal, in addition to total citations from Google Scholar were obtained to prove this paper’s argument. Universities, research ranking agencies, and researchers can use the PIE value to assess the impact (i.e., value) of research papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is the world's largest international assessment of primary-aged students' reading comprehension. However, PIRLS has previously been found to be scarcely used for reading-related research. This systematic review aimed to investigate how PIRLS has been used as a tool for educational research and critique, utilising an existing catalogue and a further article search exploiting five digital databases. A total of 221 articles published in academic journals between January 2004 and May 2022 were analysed. Results show the changing engagement in PIRLS throughout the lifetime of the study and across different countries and research disciplines. We also discuss the findings and implications of PIRLS-related research in three of the most frequent topics of these articles; teacher characteristics and instruction practices as predictors of reading performance, socioeconomic predictors of reading performance, and critiques of the psychometric scaling approaches used in PIRLS. Avenues we believe to have untapped potential, particularly in the context of reading-related research, are also discussed. • Systematic review of 221 research articles related to PIRLS. • Most articles used PIRLS data for secondary data analysis. • Research related to attainment gaps has increased since 2015. • 20% of articles were critiques of PIRLS constructs and/or procedures. • PIRLS remains underutilised for researching reading literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research examines the extent to which articles published in Scopus-indexed Library and Information Science (LIS) journals are mentioned in social media platforms. It also tries to identify the highly mentioned LIS articles. The population of the study was comprised of 193 LIS journals indexed by Scopus in 2015. Each journal was searched in Scopus and the Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) of articles was extracted. The list of DOIs was then searched in Altmetric Explorer to retrieve all attentions received by articles. Social media presence and altmetric scores of these articles were extracted in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for further investigations. Results of the study revealed that 28.8 percent of the total LIS publications were mentioned at least once in social media tools. The most used altmetric source in LIS research was Twitter (33.1%), followed by Mendeley (30.4%) and Facebook (5.9%), respectively. Moreover, the highest altmetric presence was seen in "Journal of Information Science" with altmetric coverage of 100 percent, followed by "Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling" (93.5%) and "Archival Science" (93.3%). The highest altmetric score was 393 for an article entitled, "The Open Access Advantage Considering Citation, Article Usage and Social Media Attention". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The variations in research productivity available in the scholarly world, between men and women, have always attracted the interest of many researchers across the globe. The present study aims to identify the differences in research productivity, patent creation, funding, collaboration, citation and impact between men and women across regions and disciplines over a period of time. After the comprehensive literature survey, results of various studies were correlated in a systematic manner for further analyses to reveal the findings and draw conclusions. The findings clearly depict that comparatively, males have a higher average productivity than females for all the performance indicators especially research productivity, patent creation, funding and collaboration across regions and disciplines; however, the gap is narrowing with the passage of time. The researchers have noted many factors, personal as well as academic, responsible for the limited productivity of women in research. Age, marriage, children and domestic workload are some personal factors badly affecting research productivity of women whereas less representation of women in higher education, low academic ranks, and fewer research funds are some of the academic factors affecting the research productivity negatively. In order to eliminate the gender differences in research productivity, some recommendations have been provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to demonstrate the value of research to non-academic audiences is an increasingly prominent feature of the research policy landscape in many parts of the world. Yet, little is understood about the factors that differentiate academic researchers in terms of their relative influence on non-academic actors. Following a review of the literature, this study uses novel digital methods to undertake a detailed study of the non-academic impact of UK based tourism academics. The findings suggest that non-academic impact is strikingly lower in tourism than in the social sciences more generally. The multiple regression analyses used reveal that researchers who score highly using a range of academic metrics are also cited more by policy-makers and other practitioners. On the basis of the findings, research impact in tourism is theorized. This has implications for individual and institutional tourism research strategies beyond the geographical limitations of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]