IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0173152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements

Author

Listed:
  • James Ravenscroft
  • Maria Liakata
  • Amanda Clare
  • Daniel Duma

Abstract

How does scientific research affect the world around us? Being able to answer this question is of great importance in order to appropriately channel efforts and resources in science. The impact by scientists in academia is currently measured by citation based metrics such as h-index, i-index and citation counts. These academic metrics aim to represent the dissemination of knowledge among scientists rather than the impact of the research on the wider world. In this work we are interested in measuring scientific impact beyond academia, on the economy, society, health and legislation (comprehensive impact). Indeed scientists are asked to demonstrate evidence of such comprehensive impact by authoring case studies in the context of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). We first investigate the extent to which existing citation based metrics can be indicative of comprehensive impact. We have collected all recent REF impact case studies from 2014 and we have linked these to papers in citation networks that we constructed and derived from CiteSeerX, arXiv and PubMed Central using a number of text processing and information retrieval techniques. We have demonstrated that existing citation-based metrics for impact measurement do not correlate well with REF impact results. We also consider metrics of online attention surrounding scientific works, such as those provided by the Altmetric API. We argue that in order to be able to evaluate wider non-academic impact we need to mine information from a much wider set of resources, including social media posts, press releases, news articles and political debates stemming from academic work. We also provide our data as a free and reusable collection for further analysis, including the PubMed citation network and the correspondence between REF case studies, grant applications and the academic literature.

Suggested Citation

  • James Ravenscroft & Maria Liakata & Amanda Clare & Daniel Duma, 2017. "Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0173152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathy McKeown & Hal Daume III & Snigdha Chaturvedi & John Paparrizos & Kapil Thadani & Pablo Barrio & Or Biran & Suvarna Bothe & Michael Collins & Kenneth R. Fleischmann & Luis Gravano & Rahul Jha & B, 2016. "Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(11), pages 2684-2696, November.
    2. Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2013. "Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    3. Mark A. Largent & Julia I. Lane, 2012. "STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 431-438, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    2. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V., 2022. "Dynamics of senses of new physics discourse: Co-keywords analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    3. Lu, Kun & Yang, Guancan & Wang, Xue, 2022. "Topics emerged in the biomedical field and their characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Kun Sun & Haitao Liu & Wenxin Xiong, 2021. "The evolutionary pattern of language in scientific writings: A case study of Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society (1665–1869)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1695-1724, February.
    5. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Chao Lu & Ying Ding & Chengzhi Zhang, 2017. "Understanding the impact change of a highly cited article: a content-based citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 927-945, August.
    7. Jorge A. V. Tohalino & Laura V. C. Quispe & Diego R. Amancio, 2021. "Analyzing the relationship between text features and grants productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4255-4275, May.
    8. Lina Spagert & Elke Wolf, 2025. "Doing Visibility : Understanding Gender and Discipline Differences in Science Communication on Social Media and in the Press," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Bikun Chen & Dannan Deng & Zhouyan Zhong & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1769-1790, March.
    10. Porwal, Priya & Devare, Manoj H., 2024. "Scientific impact analysis: Unraveling the link between linguistic properties and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    11. Kevin Heffernan & Simone Teufel, 2018. "Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1367-1382, August.
    12. Nicolas Robinson-Garcia & Rodrigo Costas & Kimberley Isett & Julia Melkers & Diana Hicks, 2017. "The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Lane, Julia & Schwarz, Lou, 2012. "Creating New Administrative Data to Describe the Scientific Workforce: The STAR METRICS Program," IZA Discussion Papers 6600, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Lu, Chao & Bu, Yi & Dong, Xianlei & Wang, Jie & Ding, Ying & Larivière, Vincent & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Paul, Logan & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2019. "Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 817-829.
    15. Zhenyu Yang & Wenyu Zhang & Zhimin Wang & Xiaoling Huang, 2024. "A deep learning-based method for predicting the emerging degree of research topics using emerging index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4021-4042, July.
    16. Olena Leonchuk & Denis O. Gray, 2019. "Scientific and technological (human) social capital formation and Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers: a quasi-experimental evaluation of graduate student outcomes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1638-1664, October.
    17. Marco Schmitt & Robert Jäschke, 2017. "What do computer scientists tweet? Analyzing the link-sharing practice on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-28, June.
    18. Akella, Akhil Pandey & Alhoori, Hamed & Kondamudi, Pavan Ravikanth & Freeman, Cole & Zhou, Haiming, 2021. "Early indicators of scientific impact: Predicting citations with altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    19. Wan-Ying Chang & Wei Cheng & Julia Lane & Bruce Weinberg, 2017. "Federal Funding of Doctoral Recipients: Results from new Linked Survey and Transaction Data," NBER Working Papers 23019, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Erjia Yan & Chaojiang Wu & Min Song, 2018. "The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 369-384, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.