IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1828-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automated Research Impact Assessment: a new bibliometrics approach

Author

Listed:
  • Christina H. Drew

    (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

  • Kristianna G. Pettibone

    (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

  • Fallis Owen Finch

    (Open Intelligence, Inc.)

  • Douglas Giles

    (Open Intelligence, Inc.)

  • Paul Jordan

    (National Institutes of Health)

Abstract

As federal programs are held more accountable for their research investments, The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has developed a new method to quantify the impact of our funded research on the scientific and broader communities. In this article we review traditional bibliometric analyses, address challenges associated with them, and describe a new bibliometric analysis method, the Automated Research Impact Assessment (ARIA). ARIA taps into a resource that has only rarely been used for bibliometric analyses: references cited in “important” research artifacts, such as policies, regulations, clinical guidelines, and expert panel reports. The approach includes new statistics that science managers can use to benchmark contributions to research by funding source. This new method provides the ability to conduct automated impact analyses of federal research that can be incorporated in program evaluations. We apply this method to several case studies to examine the impact of NIEHS funded research.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina H. Drew & Kristianna G. Pettibone & Fallis Owen Finch & Douglas Giles & Paul Jordan, 2016. "Automated Research Impact Assessment: a new bibliometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 987-1005, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1828-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1828-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1828-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1828-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teresa H. Jones & Claire Donovan & Steve Hanney, 2012. "Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: a literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 125-134, October.
    2. Carlyn E Orians & Joanne Abed & Christina H Drew & Shyanika Wijesinha Rose & Jennifer H Cohen & Jerry Phelps, 2009. "Scientific and public health impacts of the NIEHS Extramural Asthma Research Program: insights from primary data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 375-385, December.
    3. Grant Lewison & Isla Rippon & Steven Wooding, 2005. "Tracking knowledge diffusion through citations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, April.
    4. T. J. Phelan, 1999. "A compendium of issues for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 117-136, May.
    5. Gerard Pasterkamp & Joris I. Rotmans & Dominique V. P. Kleijn & Cornelius Borst, 2007. "Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 153-165, January.
    6. Hughes, Dana & Docto, Lindsay & Peters, Jessica & Lamb, Anne Kelsey & Brindis, Claire, 2013. "Swimming upstream: The challenges and rewards of evaluating efforts to address inequities and reduce health disparities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Christina Viola Srivastava & Nathaniel Deshmukh Towery & Brian Zuckerman, 2007. "Challenges and opportunities for research portfolio analysis, management, and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 152-156, September.
    8. Isola Ajiferuke & Dietmar Wolfram, 2010. "Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 623-638, June.
    9. Laurel L. Haak & Will Ferriss & Kevin Wright & Michael E. Pollard & Kirk Barden & Matt A. Probus & Michael Tartakovsky & Charles J. Hackett, 2012. "The electronic Scientific Portfolio Assistant: Integrating scientific knowledge databases to support program impact assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 464-475, May.
    10. Julia Lane, 2010. "Let's make science metrics more scientific," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7288), pages 488-489, March.
    11. Diana Hicks & Hiroyuki Tomizawa & Yoshiko Saitoh & Shinichi Kobayashi, 2004. "Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 76-86, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Pedro Cosme Vieira & Ana Patrícia Abreu, 2017. "Sleeping Beauties and their princes in innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 541-580, February.
    2. Heather Keathley-Herring & Eileen Van Aken & Fernando Gonzalez-Aleu & Fernando Deschamps & Geert Letens & Pablo Cardenas Orlandini, 2016. "Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 927-951, November.
    3. Cappelletti-Montano, Beniamino & Columbu, Silvia & Montaldo, Stefano & Musio, Monica, 2022. "Interpreting the outcomes of research assessments: A geometrical approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    4. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    5. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2016. "Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1341-1351, November.

    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. Alexander N. Larcombe & Sasha C. Voss, 2011. "Self-citation: comparison between Radiology, European Radiology and Radiology for 1997–1998," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 347-356, May.
    2. Thomas Gurney & Edwin Horlings & Peter van den Besselaar, 2012. "Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 435-449, May.
    3. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "iSEER: an intelligent automatic computer system for scientific evaluation of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 477-498, May.
    4. Kaur, Jasleen & Radicchi, Filippo & Menczer, Filippo, 2013. "Universality of scholarly impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 924-932.
    5. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar, 2019. "Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 105-135, October.
    6. Sung-Shun Weng & Yang Liu & Yen-Ching Chuang, 2019. "Reform of Chinese Universities in the Context of Sustainable Development: Teacher Evaluation and Improvement Based on Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Lawrence D. Fu & Constantin F. Aliferis, 2010. "Using content-based and bibliometric features for machine learning models to predict citation counts in the biomedical literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 257-270, October.
    8. Vicenç Hernández-González & Josep Maria Carné-Torrent & Carme Jové-Deltell & Álvaro Pano-Rodríguez & Joaquin Reverter-Masia, 2022. "The Top 100 Most Cited Scientific Papers in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Category of Web of Science: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-24, August.
    9. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    10. Lina Xu & Steven Dellaportas & Zhiqiang Yang & Jin Wang, 2023. "More on the relationship between interdisciplinary accounting research and citation impact," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4779-4803, December.
    11. Corey J A Bradshaw & Justin M Chalker & Stefani A Crabtree & Bart A Eijkelkamp & John A Long & Justine R Smith & Kate Trinajstic & Vera Weisbecker, 2021. "A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Pan, Xuelian & Yan, Erjia & Cui, Ming & Hua, Weina, 2018. "Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: A comparative study of three tools," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 481-493.
    13. Eduardo A. Haddad & Jesus P. Mena-Chalco, Otávio J.G. Sidone, 2016. "Produção Científica e Redes de Colaboração dos Docentes Vinculados aos Programas de Pós-graduação em Economia no Brasil," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2016_10, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    14. Mladen M. Koljatic & Mónica R. Silva, 2001. "The international publication productivity of Latin American countries in the economics and business administration fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(2), pages 381-394, June.
    15. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 343-360, February.
    16. Guetz, Bernhard & Bidmon, Sonja, 2023. "The Credibility of Physician Rating Websites: A Systematic Literature Review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    17. Eduardo A. Oliveira & Enrico A. Colosimo & Daniella R. Martelli & Isabel G. Quirino & Maria Christina L. Oliveira & Leonardo S. Lima & Ana Cristina Simões e Silva & Hercílio Martelli-Júnior, 2012. "Comparison of Brazilian researchers in clinical medicine: are criteria for ranking well-adjusted?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 429-443, February.
    18. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    19. J Sylvan Katz, 2016. "What Is a Complex Innovation System?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena, 2016. "Science policy as a prerequisite of industrial policy," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(3), pages 273-280, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bibliometrics; Automated impact analysis; Research evaluation; Science of science management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    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:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1828-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.