Reference and Research Impact

2021 ◽  
pp. 197-218
Author(s):  
Meikang Qiu ◽  
Han Qiu ◽  
Yi Zeng
Keyword(s):  
Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 578 (7794) ◽  
pp. 328-328
Author(s):  
Chris Woolston
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Suzanne Pamela Lewis

A review of: Antelman, Kristin. “Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?” College & Research Libraries 65.5 (Sep. 2004): 372-82. Objective – To ascertain whether open access articles have a greater research impact than articles not freely available, as measured by citations in the ISI Web of Science database. Design – Analysis of mean citation rates of a sample population of journal articles across four disciplines. Setting – Journal literature across the disciplines of philosophy, political science, mathematics, and electrical and electronic engineering. Subjects – A sample of 2,017 articles across the four disciplines published between 2001 and 2002 (for political science, mathematics, and electrical and electronic engineering) and between 1999 and 2000 (for philosophy). Methods – A systematic presample of articles for each of the disciplines was taken to calculate the necessary sample sizes. Based on this calculation, articles were sourced from ten leading journals in each discipline. The leading journals in political science, mathematics, and electrical and electronic engineering were defined by ISI’s Journal Citation Reports for 2002. The ten leading philosophy journals were selected using a combination of other methods. Once the sample population had been identified, each article title and the number of citations to each article (in the ISI Web of Science database) were recorded. Then the article title was searched in Google and if any freely available full text version was found, the article was classified as open access. The mean citation rate for open access and non-open access articles in each discipline was identified, and the percentage difference between the means was calculated. Main results – The four disciplines represented a range of open access uptake: 17% of articles in philosophy were open access, 29% in political science, 37% in electrical and electronic engineering, and 69% in mathematics. There was a significant difference in the mean citation rates for open access articles and non-open access articles in all four disciplines. The percentage difference in means was 45% in philosophy, 51% in electrical and electronic engineering, 86% in political science, and 91% in mathematics. Mathematics had the highest rate of open access availability of articles, but political science had the greatest difference in mean citation rates, suggesting there are other, discipline-specific factors apart from rate of open access uptake affecting research impact. Conclusion – The finding that, across these four disciplines, open access articles have a greater research impact than non-open access articles, is only one aspect of the complex changes that are presently taking place in scholarly publishing and communication. However, it is useful information for librarians formulating strategies for building institutional repositories, or exploring open access publishing with patrons or publishers.


2002 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Kristjanson ◽  
F Place ◽  
S Franzel ◽  
P.K Thornton
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-167
Author(s):  
Ian James Kidd ◽  
Jennifer Chubb ◽  
Joshua Forstenzer

Contemporary epistemologists of education have raised concerns about the distorting effects of some of the processes and structures of contemporary academia on the epistemic practice and character of academic researchers. Such concerns have been articulated using the concept of epistemic corruption. In this article, we lend credibility to these theoretically motivated concerns using the example of the research impact agenda during the period 2012–2014. Interview data from UK and Australian academics confirm that the impact agenda system, at its inception, facilitated the development and exercise of epistemic vices. As well as vindicating theoretically motivated claims about epistemic corruption, inclusion of empirical methods and material can help us put the concept to work in ongoing critical scrutiny of evolving forms of the research impact agenda.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Rene Brauer ◽  
Mirek Dymitrow

Sustainable tourism (ST) has recently become the mainstream of the tourism industry and, accordingly, has influenced contemporary tourism research. However, ST is not just theories about indications and contraindications of global travel, but also a specific language that needs mastering to take sustainability work forward. In other words, what research receives recognition depends on the proficiency in how the articulation in research proposals and within assessment under the heading of “research impact”. The aim of this paper is to investigate how tourism research gains recognition within research evaluation, by investigating the national research appraisal in the United Kingdom (Research Excellence Framework). By using content analysis, we disentangle the rhetorical choices and narrative constructions within researchers’ impact claims. Our findings suggest that researchers adopt a rhetorical style that implies causality and promotes good outcomes facilitating ST. However, the structure of the assessment format enforces an articulation of sustainable research impact without stating the methodological limitations of that such claim. Therefore, the rhetorical choices of ST researchers merely represent a proxy indicator of the claimed impact. We conclude that the lack of rigor in accounting for the impact of ST research may inadvertently restrict attaining ST.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009182962110021
Author(s):  
Hae-Won Kim

This article explores ways of conceptualizing research impact and its assessment in the context of missiological research. Can it be assumed that there is a link between missiological research knowledge and research impact on mission practice and practitioners? First, the author defines and discusses some key concepts – research impact, impact assessment, academic impact and societal impact – as well as conceptual frameworks of and approaches to research impact assessment. The author then begins to conceptualize a framework for linking research to practice in missiological research which can be further developed into a framework for research impact assessment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 05002
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cortes ◽  
Denise Depoortere ◽  
Lucina Malaver

The skies of Northern Chile are considered among the best in the world for astronomy due to their geographical, climatic and atmospheric conditions. In fact, during the last several decades, a great number of astronomical observatories have been built by space research institutions devoted to space research, turning Chile into one of the countries with the greatest astronomical observation capacity in the world. Consequently, it is relevant to explore and assess the development of astronomy in Chile during the last ten years (2005-2015), carrying out a bibliometric analysis to extract traditional metrics, complemented with alternative metrics, to identify the Chilean production and scientific contribution of research in this field of knowledge. The results from traditional metrics, based on the information obtained in the Web of Science (WoS) database analyzed through InCites for the Astronomy & Astrophysics category indicate a sustained increase of the scientific production for the discipline during the last ten years. In particular, the Normalized Citation Impact of organizations and institutions conducting research in Chile is above the worldwide average. On the other hand, the alternative metrics, including for instance, the altmetrics types presented by the SCOPUS database, reflect that the Chilean research impact is much lower in the context of social networks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document