Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact

Abstract

Conclusion: Assessment of research impact using traditional citation analysis alone is not a sufficient tool for assessing the impact of research findings, and it is not predictive of subsequent clinical applications resulting in meaningful health outcomes. The Becker Model can be used by both researchers and librarians to document research impact to supplement citation analysis.

Research Publishing by Library and Information Science Scholars in Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…Brody (2006) has reported on the potential contribution of open access to increasing research impact. Concern has been expressed as to whether citation analysis should continue to be the predominant standard by which research impact is measured, especially journal articles (Moed, 2006;Sarli et al, 2010;Aksnes et al, 2012;Nightingale & Marshall, 2012;Dowling, 2014). Meho and Yang (2007) have examined the implications of using major services such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar on the citation counts and rankings specifically of LIS faculty.…”

Measuring academic research impact: creating a citation profile using the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity as a case study

“…However, there is much debate about how best to define and quantify impact, and it is now also acknowledged that any assessment of impact must take into account influence beyond the limited bounds of academia, in areas such as public policy (Chandler 2014;Wilsdon et al 2015;REF 2014).Within academia, it is generally accepted that the number of times a paper is cited, the so-called citation statistic, count or score, offers the most useful and easilymeasured guide to its impact (Sarli et al 2010;Bjork and Solomon 2015;Wilsdon et al 2015). The underlying assumption is that the cited work has influenced the citing work in some way.…”

“…In recent years there have been attempts to understand this metric more fully, by seeking to identify factors that might predict which publications have greatest impact using this metric (Sarli et al 2010;Ravallion and Wagstaff 2011;Royle et al 2013). However, this metric is also viewed as practically and conceptually limited due to issues such as selfciting or reciprocal citing by colleagues (Sarli et al 2010) and the failure to distinguish between negative or positive citation: highly-cited literature might attract attention due to controversy or even error (Wilsdon et al 2015;Lortie et al 2013). Nevertheless, it remains an accepted, albeit limited, measure of academic impact.…”

Discussing “eScience and the Evolution of Library Services”

“…A tool developed at Becker Library at Washington University, The Becker Model (http://becker.wustl.edu/ impact-assessment/information-resources), is proving extremely useful in assisting researchers to compile evidence of the impact of their work (Sarli et al 2010;Oermann etal. 2012;Niederkrotenthaler 2011).…”