Search

Use this elevator pitch template for exercises to create a concise and compelling job position or project description. Examples of the template are included describing two librarian positions as well as an open access policy. The template can be modified to describe a product, organization, or idea.

Research impact librarianship is an area within the profession that continues to grow out of need for dedicated expertise of bibliometrics and other various assessment measures. There are numerous methods of creating or re-imagining research impact services. As is common practice within librarianship, sharing experiences and best practices for service provision, especially burgeoning services, is invaluable and informs other professionals about successes they can potentially adapt into their plans for doing similar work. The Libraries at the University of Houston is in the midst of creating a research visibility and impact program born out of an initiative to elevate the university's level of prestige and impact by developing personnel, programs, and practices to support research visibility and impact across the institution. This article discusses the University of Houston Libraries' process and progress toward formalizing research impact services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preregistration has gained traction as one of the most promising solutions to improve the replicability of scientific effects. In this project, we compared 193 psychology studies that earned a Preregistration Challenge prize or preregistration badge to 193 related studies that were not preregistered. In contrast to our theoretical expectations and prior research, we did not find that preregistered studies had a lower proportion of positive results (Hypothesis 1), smaller effect sizes (Hypothesis 2), or fewer statistical errors (Hypothesis 3) than non-preregistered studies. Supporting our Hypotheses 4 and 5, we found that preregistered studies more often contained power analyses and typically had larger sample sizes than non-preregistered studies. Finally, concerns about the publishability and impact of preregistered studies seem unwarranted, as preregistered studies did not take longer to publish and scored better on several impact measures. Overall, our data indicate that preregistration has beneficial effects in the realm of statistical power and impact, but we did not find robust evidence that preregistration prevents p-hacking and HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several decades the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has supported basic and translational research into cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. This article describes the Institute's ongoing commitment to cognitive assessment and intervention research, as reflected by three signature initiatives—Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia; Cognitive Neuroscience Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia; and Research Domain Criteria—and related funding announcements that span basic experimental studies, efficacy and comparative effectiveness trials, and implementation research designed to promote cognitive healthcare in real-world treatment settings. We discuss how trends in science and public health policy since the early 2000s have influenced NIMH treatment development activities, resulting in greater attention to (1) inclusive teams that reflect end-user perspectives on the utility of proposed studies; (2) measurement of discrete neurocognitive processes to inform targeted interventions; (3) clinical trials that produce useful information about putative illness mechanisms, promising treatment targets, and downstream clinical effects; and (4) "productive urgency" in pursuing feasible and effective cognitive interventions for psychosis. Programs employing these principles have catalyzed cognitive measurement, drug development, and behavioral intervention approaches that aim to improve neurocognition and community functioning among persons with schizophrenia. NIMH will maintain support for innovative and impactful investigator-initiated research that advances patient-centered, clinically effective, and continuously improving cognitive health care for persons with psychotic disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applying science to conservation requires deliberate planning and action infrequently taught in academic settings. To illustrate impactful analysis and science communication, we describe scientific activities targeting the needs of land trusts, NGOs, landowners, and government agencies working to conserve the Florida Wildlife Corridor (“Corridor”). This 7.2 million hectare area is prioritized for habitat connectivity conservation in the US state of Florida. Our activities are built on decades of science guiding Florida land conservation. We quantified threats (e.g., average of over 14,000 ha of development/year from 2001 to 2019) and socio‐ecological benefits of Corridor conservation, prioritized yet‐to‐be‐conserved Corridor areas, produced and shared a new statewide connectivity model, and convened groups to identify campaign science needs. The new connectivity model—the Florida Circuit Model—supported the geography of the Corridor, as designated, and facilitates local (10 km radius, or less) conservation planning. Our efforts have contributed to allocation of over $2 billion for land conservation and the permanent protection of over 82,000 ha within the Corridor by state agencies from June 2021 to March 2024. Targeting science to outreach and policy, planning, and management decisions can motivate public, media, researcher, and government support for land conservation, improve conservation interventions, and attract research funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poverty-related diseases (PRD) remain amongst the leading causes of death in children under-5 years in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) based on the best available evidence are key to strengthening health systems and helping to enhance equitable health access for children under five. However, the CPG development process is complex and resource-intensive, with substantial scope for improving the process in SSA, which is the goal of the Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project. The impact of research on PRD will be maximized through enhancing researchers and decision makers' capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant CPGs in the field of newborn and child health. The project will be implemented in three SSA countries, Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, over a 3-year period. This research protocol is for the monitoring and evaluation work package of the project. The aim of this work package is to monitor the various GELA project activities and evaluate the influence these may have on evidence-informed decision-making and guideline adaptation capacities and processes. The specific project activities we will monitor include (1) our ongoing engagement with local stakeholders, (2) their capacity needs and development, (3) their understanding and use of evidence from reviews of qualitative research and, (4) their overall views and experiences of the project. Methods: We will use a longitudinal, mixed-methods study design, informed by an overarching project Theory of Change. A series of interconnected qualitative and quantitative data collections methods will be used, including knowledge translation tracking sheets and case studies, capacity assessment online surveys, user testing and in-depth interviews, and non-participant observations of project activities. Participants will comprise of project staff, members of the CPG panels and steering committees in Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, as well as other local stakeholders in these three African countries. Discussion: Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will help ensure the relationship between researchers and stakeholders is supported from the project start. This can facilitate achievement of common goals and enable researchers in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria to make adjustments to project activities to maximize stakeholder engagement and research utilization. Ethical approval has been provided by South African Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committee (EC015-7/2022); The College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, Malawi (P.07/22/3687); National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (01/01/2007). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is not uncommon to encounter overoptimistic views among policy-makers concerning the extent to which the research outcome of a university can have an impact on the innovation and economic performance of a local economy. Policies and expectations are usually influenced by optimal cases of top-ranked universities in highly innovative geographies. However, most universities do not function in such contexts, but in regions of weak innovation and economic development, often characterized as less developed regions (LDRs). To enrich our understanding about universities within LDRs, this study attempts to provide insights into the local research impact of a young university located within an LDR by analyzing bibliometric data. Findings show that although the university's research output grows, there is hardly any evidence of an impact on local organizations, suggesting that the expected universities' roles and related innovation policies should always consider the characteristics of the place within which they function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The emergence of ChatGPT in the education literature represents a transformative phase in educational technology research, marked by a surge in publications driven by initial research interest in new topics and media hype. While these publications highlight ChatGPT's potential in education, concerns arise regarding their quality, methodology, and uniqueness. Objective: Our study employs unconventional methods by combining altmetrics and bibliometrics to explore ChatGPT in education comprehensively. Methods: Two scholarly databases, Web of Science and Altmetric, were adopted to retrieve publications with citations and those mentioned on social media, respectively. We used a search query, "ChatGPT," and set the publication date between November 30th, 2022, and August 31st, 2023. Both datasets were within the education‐related domains. Through a filtering process, we identified three publication categories: 49 papers with both altmetrics and citations, 60 with altmetrics only, and 66 with citations only. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on all three lists of papers, further dividing the entire collection into three distinct periods. All the selected papers underwent detailed coding regarding open access, paper types, subject domains, and learner levels. Furthermore, we analysed the keywords occurring and visualized clusters of the co‐occurring keywords. Results and Conclusions: An intriguing finding is the significant correlation between media/social media mentions and academic citations in ChatGPT in education papers, underscoring the transformative potential of ChatGPT and the urgency of its incorporation into practice. Our keyword analysis also reveals distinctions between the themes of the papers that received both mentions and citations and those that received only citations but no mentions. Additionally, we noticed a limitation that authors' choice of keywords might be influenced by individual subjective judgements, potentially skewing results in thematic analysis based solely on author‐assigned keywords such as keyword co‐occurrence analysis. Henceforth, we advocate for developing a standardized keyword taxonomy in the educational technology field and integrating Large Language Models to enhance keyword analysis in altmetric and bibliometric tools. This study reveals that ChatGPT in education literature is evolving from rapid publication to rigorous research. Lay Description: What is currently known about this topic?: ChatGPT in education has seen a surge in publications driven by media hype.Early publications tend to lack rigour and reiterate known advantages/disadvantages.Literature reviews on ChatGPT in education have limitations in scope and depth.Some studies have explored altmetrics and bibliometrics in other fields. What does this paper add?: Combines altmetrics and bibliometrics to analyse publications of ChatGPT in education.Addresses challenges in the discourse by offering unconventional analysis methods.Identifies publication trends and investigates the relationship between media attention and citations.Determines key themes in the literature through keyword co‐occurrence analysis. Implications for practice/or policy: Expectations of continued growth in ChatGPT literature but with evolving publication trends.Distinctive characteristics of ChatGPT in education challenge keyword analysis.Proposes the development of a unified keyword taxonomy for clarity in the field.Suggests enhancing altmetrics and bibliometrics tools using Large Language Models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What motivates academics to pursue technology and knowledge transfer has been a growing area of research with recent calls for a deeper understanding of this issue. Technology and knowledge transfer are being positioned by policymakers and universities as part of the wider research impact agenda. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to explore at a micro level the motivational diversity among academics in pursuing research impact. Set in a business school context, our study uses self-determination theory and an interpretive approach. We focus on the main motivations to be an academic in terms of the core psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the consequent intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for research impact, and the attitudes towards institutional measures for this practice. We identified six research impact groups, practice-oriented researchers, business seekers, instrumentalists, compliers, theoreticians, and relationship facilitators. We also found some friction between the motivations to be an academic and for research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of biodiversity conservation, there is a growing need for research to translate to real-world impacts. Currently there exists a gap between research outcomes and on the ground action, commonly referred to as the knowledgeaction gap. Previous research has focused on identifying the causes of the gap, but less research has focused on how to bridge it. We conducted an online survey with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify barriers in the science-to application pipeline and to understand how potential solutions would need to account for their information needs and workflows. Through a qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey responses, we found that information about tools and approaches to address conservation challenges is needed, but decision makers also need information to help them account for context specific barriers and opportunities. Solution-specific information alone, however, is often insufficient for practitioners, who also require the resource capacity and capable personnel to work with that information. Word of mouth and scholarly databases are the most common ways of learning about new tools and techniques, but lack of time, funding and personnel are barriers to implementing them. In addition, respondents identified a need for increased engagement with the conservation social sciences. We argue that a usercentered design approach should underpin any proposed solution to the gap and suggest that an online tool could be one effective solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post graduate master's degree qualifications are increasingly required to advance allied health profession careers in education, clinical practice, leadership, and research. Successful awards are dependent on completion of a research dissertation project. Despite the high volume of experience gained and research undertaken at this level, the benefits and impact are not well understood. Our study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree training and research on allied health profession practice and research activity. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey design was used to collect data from allied health professionals working in the United Kingdom who had completed a postgraduate master's degree. Participants were recruited voluntarily using social media and clinical interest group advertisement. Data was collected between October and December 2022 and was analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative content analysis. Informed consent was gained, and the study was approved by the university research ethics committee. Results: Eighty-four responses were received from nine allied health professions with paramedics and physiotherapists forming the majority (57%) of respondents. Primary motivation for completion of the master's degree was for clinical career progression (n = 44, 52.4%) and formation of the research dissertation question was predominantly sourced from individual ideas (n = 58, 69%). Formal research output was low with 27.4% (n = 23) of projects published in peer reviewed journal and a third of projects reporting no output or dissemination at all. Perceived impact was rated highest in individual learning outcomes, such as improving confidence and capability in clinical practice and research skills. Ongoing research engagement and activity was high with over two thirds (n = 57, 67.9%) involved in formal research projects. Conclusion: The focus of master's degree level research was largely self-generated with the highest perceived impact on individual outcomes rather than broader clinical service and organisation influence. Formal output from master's research was low, but ongoing research engagement and activity was high suggesting master's degree training is an under-recognised source for AHP research capacity building. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of better coordinated and prioritised research at master's degree level on professional and organisational impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health research, including drug safety research, is communicated, in part, by being cited; understanding these citations can help determine its reach and impact. We analyzed the uptake of a Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies study of the heart failure risk of incretin-based drugs using quantitative and qualitative bibliometric approaches. A Scopus® search (2016–2020) returned 127 citing articles, mostly single studies and review articles. Many were also high impact journals, with intended audiences of other researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. Using the Becker Model, 93% contributed to "advancing knowledge." Research impact can be difficult to establish. We have demonstrated one comprehensive approach that can be further adapted and automated; researchers and funders need to determine the best indicators, tools, and frameworks to use that are feasible and context relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, there has been a push for the prioritisation of research impact beyond its scholarly contribution. Traditionally, research impact assessments have focused on academic impact and quantitative measures, at the expense of researchers for whom research impact cannot be quantified. Bibliometric indicators and other quantitative measures are still the most widely used method for evaluating research impact because these measures are easy to use and provide a quick solution for evaluators. Conversely, metric indicators fail to capture important dimensions of high-quality research. Hence, in this study, we explored challenges with metric indicators. We adopted a case study of the University of Cape Town and used document analysis, a questionnaire survey to collect data from academics and researchers, as well as semi-structured interviews with a sample of academic and research staff. The findings highlight common challenges with quantitative measures, such as bias and discipline coverage, and the ability of measures to drive researchers' behaviour in another direction. We propose the adoption of responsible research metrics and assessment in South African higher education institutions for more inclusive and equitable research impact assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the development and implementation of a customized Python script utilizing the Elsevier Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science Journal Citation Reports Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The aim was to streamline and expedite the labor-intensive process of collecting research metrics, which were traditionally compiled manually by librarians at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Louis Calder Memorial Library. The script significantly reduces the time and effort required to generate comprehensive reports on research productivity, thereby enabling more efficient resource allocation and aiding in faculty evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marketing scholars increasingly aim to research social and policy problems to create and implement solutions with relevant stakeholders that drive societal impact. In 2022, Transformative Consumer Research and the American Marketing Association sponsored the first TCR-AMA Impact Festival, celebrating societally impactful research in marketing. Results and reflections from the conference point to successes and significant challenges facing scholars who seek to do research with societal impact. A TCR Impact Task Force of leading marketing and consumer scholars was surveyed in a two-stage Delphi study to understand these opportunities and obstacles more deeply and prioritize next steps for the academic community. The results provide an agenda for transformative consumer and marketing research. This agenda provokes fresh thinking for paradigm-level changes by advocating new research validities, methods of stakeholder engagement, initiatives for developing researchers' capacities, and more substantial institutional support to accelerate the success of impactful academic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In general, the presence and performance of women in science have increased significantly in recent decades. However, gender-related differences persist and remain a global phenomenon. Women make a greater contribution to multidisciplinary research, which renders anti-doping research a compelling area for investigating the gendered aspects of academic research. The research design was based on the overall research aim to investigate whether gender in a specific field (ADS) has an effect on different aspects of research impact, including (1) the size of citation impact obtained by the research output, (2) the impact on the development of the knowledge base of ADS, expressed as the capacity of integrating knowledge from different research areas, and (3) the (expected) type of research impact targeting either societal or scientific developments (or both). We used a previously compiled dataset of 1341 scientific outputs. Using regression analysis, we explored the role of authors' gender in citations and the effect of authorship features on scientific impact. We employed network analysis and developed a novel indicator (LinkScore) to quantify gendered authors' knowledge integration capacity. We carried out a content analysis on a subsample of 210 outputs to explore gender differences in research goal orientation as related to gender patterns. Women's representation has been considerably extended in the domain of ADS throughout the last two decades. On average, outputs with female corresponding authors yield a higher average citation score. Regarding women's knowledge integration roles, we can infer that no substantial gender differences can be detected. Dominantly female papers were overrepresented among publications classified as aimed at scientific progress, while the share of male-authored papers was higher in publications classified as aimed at societal progress. Although no significant gender difference was observed in knowledge integration roles, in anti-doping women appear to be more interdisciplinary than men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy citations are considered as one of the important indicators of the societal impact of research. Scientometrics is a field that, among other goals, focus on contributing to science policy, so the presence of scientometric researches in policy documents become important. Accordingly, this study aims to measure the impact of scientometric researches on policy by examining the mentions of scientometric articles in policy documents. The dataset used in this study includes 5525 scientometric articles indexed in Web of Science between 2013 and 2022. The Overton database were used to collect policy citations. The results showed that out of 5525 scientometric articles, 921 articles (16.67%) were cited at least once in policy documents. Additionally, older articles were cited more frequently than recent ones in policy documents. Scientometrics Journal ranked first in terms of the number of articles being cited in policy documents, while Research Policy and Research Evaluation Journals ranked first and second, respectively, in terms of coverage, density, and intensity. Subject analysis of the cited articles in policy documents showed that articles on national/international scholar collaborations, scholar productivity/scholar performance, and funding and sponsorship were cited more frequently in policy documents. Finally, Open Access articles were cited more frequently than non-open access articles in policy documents. However, there was not significant difference between policy citations of multi-authored and sing-authored articles. Overall, policy citations of scientometric articles were fair compared to other fields, and for greater impact of this field on policy, publishing open access, and greater attention to the topics identified in this study can be helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prevailing attention centers on the plight of female scientists in modern academia. However, female contributions and potential remain insufficiently recognized. To unravel this veil, we leverage large-scale cross-disciplinary datasets from SciSciNet to portray female participation over the past 20 years and quantify the female effect on research using bibliometric indicators. Female ratio is utilized to gauge gender composition within teams. Through successive modeling including mixed-effect and multivariate regressions, we disentangle the intricate effects of female presence and extent of female participation on research impact and dual innovation metrics. We find a steady rise in female-inclusive teams and per-team female ratios over time, with variations across disciplines and broad categories. We demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between female ratio and citation counts—gender-balanced teams typically garner peak citations, while highly-cited vertices drift toward male-skewed teams in male-majority areas. Increasing female participation yields significant gains in innovation. In the upstream of knowledge flow, as captured by novelty (z-scores), female-skewed teams tend to combine more unconventional knowledge. For the downstream, as encapsulated through disruption, female-skewed teams' innovation efforts have been recognized by follow-on citations. Notably, the female advantage in innovation becomes more evident in male-dominated fields and intensifies over time. Our study offers insights into the unique academic value and the tremendous scientific contributions of females, providing important visions for institutional and policy reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of positive words in scientific papers has exhibited a notable upwards trend over the past few decades. However, there remains a gap in our comprehensive understanding of the relationship between positive words and research impact. In this study, we conduct a multifaceted exploration of the citation advantage associated with positive words based on social cognitive theory, examining its predictability, temporal evolution, and universality across journals of varying quality grades. Drawing from a corpus encompassing 124,144 papers published in the management field between 2001 and 2020, our regression results provide compelling evidence suggesting that positive words can serve as a significant predictor of the citation counts of academic papers, supporting the citation advantage of positive words. However, it is essential to recognize that over time, the citation advantage attributed to positive words is experiencing a conspicuous decline. The universality of the above phenomenon has been further verified in the analysis of journals of different quality. Our findings prompt a discussion regarding the need to pay more attention to the overuse and misuse of positive words, as well as practical considerations for enhancing scientific communication within the academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most impactful research on pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains unknown. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and impact of the 100 most-cited articles on pediatric T1D. Materials and Methods: Using a predefined bibliometric strategy, the Scopus database was searched for high-cited papers (HCPs) published from 2001 to 2020. Articles were evaluated for data on the publication year, countries, authors, journals, topics, and types. Social network analysis was performed to visualize the interaction among countries, organizations, and authors using VOSviewer software. Results: The top 100 HCPs received 390 to 4634 citations, averaging 773.5 citations per paper (CPP). The funded HCPs (n = 50) had a higher impact (CPP 791.5). The majority of HCPs (n = 83) were collaborative. Classifying by research type, 65 studies were clinical (n = 65), risk factors (n = 27), epidemiology (n = 26), pathophysiology (n = 16), treatment outcome (n = 13), genetics (n = 12), complications (n = 3), quality of life (n = 2), and prognosis (n = 1). The number of authors involved was 1,101, affiliated with 545 organizations in 27 countries; the USA (n = 64) and the UK (n = 24) were the most productive countries, whereas Australia and the UK were the most impactful. D.M. Nathan and J.M. Lawrence were the most prolific authors, while P. Raskin and J.M. Lachin were the most impactful. Conclusions: High-income countries such as the USA, UK, and Australia contribute significantly to high-impact pediatric T1D research. Funding and collaboration improve the impact of citations in publications. Less researched areas such as treatment outcomes, genetics, complications, quality of life, and prognosis should be the focus of future research on pediatric T1D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beyond the political interference of authoritarian regimes, the neoliberalisation of the academy has emerged as one of the key threats to academic freedom in the twenty-first century. The demand to produce research outputs of sufficient quantity, quality, and impact for scholars to justify their taxpayer-funded appointments reconceptualises the responsibility of the public scholar from one who challenges the status quo and inequitable power relations, to one who provides a worthwhile return on investment. Accordingly, questions have been raised as to whether academia is a feasible realm in which to further ideals of equity and justice in music education. In this article, I examine the tension between critical imperative and methodological conformity, considering how the policing of method reinforces individualized frames of knowledge-production that fix and limit notions of what knowledge is and what it does. I argue that music education scholars may be well placed to deviate from procedural method in realizing a more creative and relational public scholarship, in working toward a more ethical conceptualisation of academic freedom through the inquiry process itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Post graduate master’s degree qualifications are increasingly required to advance allied health profession careers in education, clinical practice, leadership, and research. Successful awards are dependent on completion of a research dissertation project. Despite the high volume of experience gained and research undertaken at this level, the benefits and impact are not well understood. Our study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact and legacy of master’s degree training and research on allied health profession practice and research activity. Methods A cross-sectional online survey design was used to collect data from allied health professionals working in the United Kingdom who had completed a postgraduate master’s degree. Participants were recruited voluntarily using social media and clinical interest group advertisement. Data was collected between October and December 2022 and was analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative content analysis. Informed consent was gained, and the study was approved by the university research ethics committee. Results Eighty-four responses were received from nine allied health professions with paramedics and physiotherapists forming the majority (57%) of respondents. Primary motivation for completion of the master’s degree was for clinical career progression (n = 44, 52.4%) and formation of the research dissertation question was predominantly sourced from individual ideas (n = 58, 69%). Formal research output was low with 27.4% (n = 23) of projects published in peer reviewed journal and a third of projects reporting no output or dissemination at all. Perceived impact was rated highest in individual learning outcomes, such as improving confidence and capability in clinical practice and research skills. Ongoing research engagement and activity was high with over two thirds (n = 57, 67.9%) involved in formal research projects. Conclusion The focus of master's degree level research was largely self-generated with the highest perceived impact on individual outcomes rather than broader clinical service and organisation influence. Formal output from master’s research was low, but ongoing research engagement and activity was high suggesting master’s degree training is an under-recognised source for AHP research capacity building. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of better coordinated and prioritised research at master’s degree level on professional and organisational impact.

Abstract Background In the Netherlands, university medical centres (UMCs) bear primary responsibility for conducting medical research and delivering highly specialized care. The TopCare program was a policy experiment lasting 4 years in which three non-academic hospitals received funding from the Dutch Ministry of Health to also conduct medical research and deliver highly specialized care in specific domains. This study investigates research collaboration outcomes for all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals in general and, more specifically, for the domains in the non-academic hospitals participating in the TopCare program. Additionally, it explores the organizational boundary work employed by these hospitals to foster productive research collaborations. Methods A mixed method research design was employed combining quantitative bibliometric analysis of publications and citations across all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals and the TopCare domains with geographical distances, document analysis and ethnographic interviews with actors in the TopCare program. Results Quantitative analysis shows that, over the period of study, international collaboration increased among all hospitals while national collaboration and single institution research declined slightly. Collaborative efforts correlated with higher impact scores, and international collaboration scored higher than national collaboration. A total of 60% of all non-academic hospitals’ publications were produced in collaboration with UMCs, whereas almost 30% of the UMCs’ publications were the result of such collaboration. Non-academic hospitals showed a higher rate of collaboration with the UMC that was nearest geographically, whereas TopCare hospitals prioritized expertise over geographical proximity within their specialized domains. Boundary work mechanisms adopted by TopCare hospitals included aligning research activities with organizational mindset (identity), bolstering research infrastructure (competence) and finding and mobilizing strategic partnerships with academic partners (power). These efforts aimed to establish credibility and attractiveness as collaboration partners. Conclusions Research collaboration between non-academic hospitals and UMCs, particularly where this also involves international collaboration, pays off in terms of publications and impact. The TopCare hospitals used the program’s resources to perform boundary work aimed at becoming an attractive and credible collaboration partner for academia. Local factors such as research history, strategic domain focus, in-house expertise, patient flows, infrastructure and network relationships influenced collaboration dynamics within TopCare hospitals and between them and UMCs.

Background: In the Netherlands, university medical centres (UMCs) bear primary responsibility for conducting medical research and delivering highly specialized care. The TopCare program was a policy experiment lasting 4 years in which three non-academic hospitals received funding from the Dutch Ministry of Health to also conduct medical research and deliver highly specialized care in specific domains. This study investigates research collaboration outcomes for all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals in general and, more specifically, for the domains in the non-academic hospitals participating in the TopCare program. Additionally, it explores the organizational boundary work employed by these hospitals to foster productive research collaborations. Methods: A mixed method research design was employed combining quantitative bibliometric analysis of publications and citations across all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals and the TopCare domains with geographical distances, document analysis and ethnographic interviews with actors in the TopCare program. Results: Quantitative analysis shows that, over the period of study, international collaboration increased among all hospitals while national collaboration and single institution research declined slightly. Collaborative efforts correlated with higher impact scores, and international collaboration scored higher than national collaboration. A total of 60% of all non-academic hospitals' publications were produced in collaboration with UMCs, whereas almost 30% of the UMCs' publications were the result of such collaboration. Non-academic hospitals showed a higher rate of collaboration with the UMC that was nearest geographically, whereas TopCare hospitals prioritized expertise over geographical proximity within their specialized domains. Boundary work mechanisms adopted by TopCare hospitals included aligning research activities with organizational mindset (identity), bolstering research infrastructure (competence) and finding and mobilizing strategic partnerships with academic partners (power). These efforts aimed to establish credibility and attractiveness as collaboration partners. Conclusions: Research collaboration between non-academic hospitals and UMCs, particularly where this also involves international collaboration, pays off in terms of publications and impact. The TopCare hospitals used the program's resources to perform boundary work aimed at becoming an attractive and credible collaboration partner for academia. Local factors such as research history, strategic domain focus, in-house expertise, patient flows, infrastructure and network relationships influenced collaboration dynamics within TopCare hospitals and between them and UMCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) is the largest professional membership body within the field of counselling and psychological therapies in the UK, but there is a mismatch between its membership of >65,000 and its research impact. This article sets out a potential strategic direction as considered by an informal grouping of researchers and teachers in the field. Actionable research plans are outlined at three levels: client–practitioner, local communities, and societies. At the client–practitioner level, data‐informed practice can be readily implemented as a therapeutic aid akin to supervision, providing the potential for integrating research into everyday practice. At the community level, interdisciplinary collaborations together with a focus on equality, diversity, and inclusiveness are paths to building a community of researchers and citizens that includes marginalised populations. The importance of social justice extends to the societal level, connecting with politics at a micro and macro level, and engaging internationally to respond to actual threats (e.g., climate change). Across these three levels, high value is placed on data with its potential for informing and improving practice, but also enhancing the lives of people in communities and societies. Overall, research strategies need to be collaborative (i.e., collegial) and less singular (i.e., individually project‐based), developing cumulative knowledge around specific topics via a ‘capture and build’ strategy for small projects with strategic oversight by BACP. Clarity of research strategy combined with collaborative and collective action from BACP and leaders in the field can help realise the full potential of BACP's research capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the skyrocketing of corporate sustainability research in management, environmental grand challenges like climate change, persist. Given firms' pivotal role in either improving or worsening these challenges, it is important to consider how corporate sustainability research can affect the resolution of these challenges. Understanding the historical evolution of the cognitive structure of the field facilitates the forecasting of the likely future path of sustainability research. Through the analysis of the co-occurrence of 25,701 keywords in 11,954 sustainability-related articles from 1994 to 2021, we identify and graphically illustrate how ideas in the field have been interconnected, evolved, and are trending. Unexpectedly, we observe that the environmental focus in the literature wanes despite heightened environmental salience. We suggest ways that the trajectory of sustainability research should change to improve our ability to help businesses address environmental challenges. These include reassessing the problem focus, recalibrating theoretical foundations, and reimagining methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores arts-based practice research from the perspective of a UK University. In this context, Practice Research is still fraught with complexity that can result in communication issues. It can be challenging to confidently share insights and developments with readers outside of one’s discipline. There can be an overwhelming feeling of having to justify the value of one’s practice and over-explain every element to underline its worth. But what does Practice Research offer us and how can we, in the Arts, effectively communicate this to the broader academic community and beyond? Is there really a difference between practice-based and practice-led research or are there other ways to describe and share what we (academic practitioners) are creating? This paper will draw on specific examples from UK institutions to see how various challenges of communication and justification have been addressed at PhD level, through national research audits of academic staff, which also include considerations of the university research environment. I will discuss examples of successful practice-based research outputs from the University of Portsmouth that were part of the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF), a National published research government audit of UK academic institutions. I will show examples of how visual practitioners have contextualized their research outputs so that they can be “effectively shared.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the founding editor of Communication Research and Practice, I look back on some of the key drivers of the journal's development and issues faced for the future. It is noted that the journal has successfully navigated the challenge of becoming a highly regarded outlet for scholarship that has global reach while being predominantly authored from Australia and New Zealand. Challenges faced relate to how broadly to understand communication as a field, engagement with the Asia-Pacific region, and the relationship between theory and practice in the communication professions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study looks closely at research papers about blended learning (BL) from the last 10 years (2014-2023). It pulls information from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). By using both, it gives a full picture of what is being published and what's important in BL research. The search found 1,704 articles in Scopus and 1,545 in WoS. After putting them together and removing duplicates, there were 2,455 articles for the study. The study used a Bibliometrix R to look at who published a lot, which countries and schools did most, who worked together, and which articles got mentioned a lot. Each year, the number of articles grew by about 15.58%. Most of these, 93.00%, were articles. Universities in Australia were among those that wrote the most. "Education and Information Technologies" and "International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education" were often cited, which shows they have big roles in this research area. Some of the main researchers who connect a lot of the work are Zhu, Graham, and Jackson. It is found that keywords "higher education", "online learning", "students", and "COVID-19" are very common in discussions and help shape the research being done. While much research comes from Australia and the West, there is also growing work from Asia and the Middle East. This shows that BL is becoming important in different parts of the world. But there's a chance to get more research from less wealthy countries. This study puts together a clear picture of BL research. It looks at what's been published, who talks to who, and which places are doing the work. The research has grown who the main people are, where there's a gap between different regions, and what we should think about for the future. This can help make policies and change how we teach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is derived from a presentation given by the first author at the 2024 Symposium for the Calvin Schwabe Award, presented to Dr. Jan Sargeant for Lifetime Achievement in Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Researchers must work toward ensuring validity throughout the research process, but we also should ensure that our resulting outcomes are specified to appropriately inform and enable decision-making by the end-users. Given the scope and diversity of topics addressed by veterinary researchers, the potential beneficiaries or stakeholders of our research also varies. Stakeholders or end-users may include veterinary practitioners, other researchers, livestock owners, “pet parents,” government officials, corporate entities, or the general public in the case of public health or food security and safety issues. Current research in animal agriculture provides an opportunity to consider research outcomes in a sustainability framework which concurrently values social, economic, and environment impacts of animal health and management decisions. In companion animals, contemporary issues of affordability and access to care, quality of life, or compliance effects on efficacy, also extend the spectrum of relevant research outcomes. In these cases, traditional measures of animal health, such as morbidity, mortality, or weight gain, may not be the most relevant for the end-users. Furthermore, if studies are not designed and analyzed with well-defined primary outcomes that are informed by stakeholders’ values, but rather post-hoc considerations of these values are made based on indirect or surrogate measures, there is the potential to incorporate error and bias into our conclusions and the end-users’ decision-making processes.

Internationally, there has been a push for the prioritisation of research impact beyond its scholarly contribution. Traditionally, research impact assessments have focused on academic impact and quantitative measures, at the expense of researchers for whom research impact cannot be quantified. Bibliometric indicators and other quantitative measures are still the most widely used method for evaluating research impact because these measures are easy to use and provide a quick solution for evaluators. Conversely, metric indicators fail to capture important dimensions of high-quality research. Hence, in this study, we explored challenges with metric indicators. We adopted a case study of the University of Cape Town and used document analysis, a questionnaire survey to collect data from academics and researchers, as well as semi-structured interviews with a sample of academic and research staff. The findings highlight common challenges with quantitative measures, such as bias and discipline coverage, and the ability of measures to drive researchers’ behaviour in another direction. We propose the adoption of responsible research metrics and assessment in South African higher education institutions for more inclusive and equitable research impact assessments. Significance: • The study highlights the importance of understanding the challenges and influence of current measures used for assessing research impact in higher education institutions. • There is a need for higher education leaders, policymakers and funders to advocate and support responsible metrics. • Higher education leaders, funders and policymakers need to collaborate at the national level to initiate and support research assessment reform.

In the field of biodiversity conservation, there is a growing need for research to translate to real-world impacts. Currently there exists a gap between research outcomes and on the ground action, commonly referred to as the knowledge-action gap. Previous research has focused on identifying the causes of the gap, but less research has focused on how to bridge it. We conducted an online survey with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify barriers in the science-to application pipeline and to understand how potential solutions would need to account for their information needs and workflows. Through a qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey responses, we found that information about tools and approaches to address conservation challenges is needed, but decision makers also need information to help them account for context specific barriers and opportunities. Solution-specific information alone, however, is often insufficient for practitioners, who also require the resource capacity and capable personnel to work with that information. Word of mouth and scholarly databases are the most common ways of learning about new tools and techniques, but lack of time, funding and personnel are barriers to implementing them. In addition, respondents identified a need for increased engagement with the conservation social sciences. We argue that a user-centered design approach should underpin any proposed solution to the gap and suggest that an online tool could be one effective solution.

Abstract Background Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. Main body Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. Conclusion Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment.

The aim of this study was to gain insight in knowledge mobilization (KM) in educational research, focusing on the type of collaboration, the strategies and the conditions. KM reflects the interaction and relationship between educational research and practice and requires specific effort over time. We studied 69 research reports and held 12 group interviews with consortia of researchers and teachers. Results show that the research projects could be characterized as researcher-directed or school-and- researcher directed collaboration. Strategies for KM found in these collaborations were mainly ‘transferring’ and ‘implementing’. ‘Co-creation’ as a strategy was found more often in school- and researcher collaboration projects. Finally, the conditions enabling or constraining KM were found at the level of research knowledge, the individual teacher and researcher, school organization, research organization, consortium, and communication. Implications for future research are discussed.

The evaluation of research to allocate government funding to universities is now common across the globe. The Research Excellence Framework, introduced in the UK in 2014, marked a major change by extending assessment beyond the 'quality' of published research to include its real-world 'impact'. Impact submissions were a key determinant of the £4 billion allocated to universities following the exercise. The case studies supporting claims for impact are therefore a high stakes genre, with writers keen to make the most persuasive argument for their work. In this paper we examine 800 of these 'impact case studies' from disciplines across the academic spectrum to explore the rhetorical presentation of impact. We do this by analysing authors' use of hyperbolic and promotional language to embroider their presentations, discovering substantial hyping with a strong preference for boosting the novelty and certainty of the claims made. Chemistry and physics, the most abstract and theoretical disciplines of our selection, contained the most hyping items with fewer as we move along the hard/pure – soft/applied continuum as the real-world value of work becomes more apparent. We also show that hyping varies with the type of impact, with items targeting technological, economic and cultural areas the most prolific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher education's focus is shifting to include societal impact alongside academic excellence. While community-engaged scholarship has a long history, many initiatives focus on individual researchers or institutional practices, without accounting for disciplinary and geopolitical contexts. The Community Engagement for Impact (CEFI) Framework and the Contextual Model of Community Engagement (CMCE) are based on findings of an in-depth, qualitative study of researchers' strategies for community engagement. Results point to complex relationships between researchers, universities, and disciplines, shaped by government policy, research trends, community imperatives, and other factors. While participants fostered community relationships supporting social change, they did not receive appropriate training, support, or recognition. CEFI guides individuals and institutions to identify barriers and facilitators for engagement, across disciplines, for work involving industry organisations, community groups, governments, and other partners. When used alongside CMCE's approach to local, national, and global factors, researchers, universities, and disciplines can better support pathways to societal impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the social role of collaborative ethnographic research amid our current intersecting social, political and ecological crises. It investigates how the multi-sited, arts-based, ethnographic study, Global Youth (Digital) Citizen-Artists and their Publics: Performing for Socio-Ecological Justice (2019–2024), adopts drama as a tool to at once respond compassionately and imaginatively to crisis, and envision alternative social, political and ecological futures in its wake. A "metho-pedagogical" paradigm is mobilized as a framework to consider how drama is put to work, methodologically and pedagogically, at a time of climate emergency and pandemic. This framework is illustrated across two vignettes, which attend to the social challenges and impacts of emergent drama-based ethnographic research across two years of the study, in varying geographic locations with different cultural orientations, in live classrooms and in virtual theatre spaces. Attention, risk, desire, trust and reciprocity emerge as important proposals for engaging in arts-led research with youth in these times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why you should read this article: • To gain insight in how to demonstrate the impact arising from your research work • To understand the careful planning required at all stages of research to achieve impact • To gain an overview of strategies used in one study that could be transferred to other settings. Background: Several drivers are currently leading to greater emphasis of the importance of ensuring research has impact. Nursing research aims to improve patient care, safety and well-being, so it might be assumed results with the potential to effect such changes would automatically have an impact on clinical practice. However, experience suggests this is not the case and careful attention is needed for there to be an impact. Aim: To present the example of a project commissioned to develop a health communication tool to support people with learning disabilities in accessing healthcare. Discussion: The authors explore the importance of a planned approach to impact by referencing existing frameworks and providing examples of strategies used in the project. They also discuss the importance of framing the question using a range of approaches to actively engage stakeholders and of using diverse strategies to embed the development in practice. Conclusion: A planned approach is required to maximise impact from research. Planning and associated actions need to start at the very beginning of the research project and continue beyond the point of delivering the project report. Implications for practice: This paper relates to a specific context and patient group but the principles discussed are transferable to other clinical settings and patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]