Measuring the Impact of Research: Lessons from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014

Chowdhury, Gobinda; Koya, Kushwanth; Philipson, Pete

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156978

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Chowdhury et al 2016). The quantitative indicators most commonly referred to related to public engagement, economic activity and training, 23 all of which could be considered widely applicable to most units of assessment (UOAs) in the REF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for standardising quantitative indicators of impact within REF case studies

Parks¹,

Ioppolo²,

Štěpánek³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report was commissioned by the research and knowledge exchange directorate of the former HEFCE, whose research and knowledge exchange staff and functions transferred to the newly created Research England. Research England is one of the nine councils of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK R® is a registered trademark.RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the sponsor. In particular, the report proposes guidance for two broad categories of standards. First, a 'style guide' is proposed containing general stylistic items that could be standardised in order to make quantitative indicators of impact -and specific formulations of them -more discoverable in general. Second, 'specific guidance' is presented which addresses more specific and commonly occurring quantitative indicators that have been used as evidence of impact in the REF 2014 case studies. It is important to note that this study does not judge the validity or relative value of the quantitative impact indicators presented in the REF 2014 case studies.Both sets of guidance presented in this report are intended to inform the development of the guidance and criteria for the preparation of impact case studies in REF 2021. In addition, the analysis may be of interest to other stakeholders seeking to better understand how to articulate the impact of research and, more broadly, to anyone interested in research assessment, the REF, and the wider impact of university research.The guidance presented in this report is primarily based on an analysis of the non-redacted impact case studies that were submitted by UK higher education institutions to REF 2014. The analysis was carried out over a nine-week period using a mixed-methods approach that involved a blend of text mining and qualitative methods. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit policy research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making in the public interest, through research and analysis. 2 RAND Europe's clients include European governments, institutions, NGOs and firms with a need for rigorous, independent, multi-disciplinary analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for standardising quantitative indicators of impact within REF case studies

Parks¹,

Ioppolo²,

Štěpánek³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…JIF ничего не говорит о качестве отдельной статьи в журнале [4]. Национальный научный фонд США, Европейская комиссия, а также некоторые мировые агентства финансирования научных исследований называют приоритетными измерение социального, культурного, экономического и научного влияния результатов научных исследований [5].…”

Section: индикаторы библиометрии в интернетеunclassified

“…Подобные измерения остаются проблемными из-за неадекватной интерпретации большого числа индикаторов, основывающихся на количестве цитирований, доступа и/или скачиваний публикации. Альтернативные подходы, такие как измерение индикаторов вебометрик, социальные метрики и многомерный Лейденский манифест, были предложены для решения некоторых из этих проблем [5,8,9].…”

Section: индикаторы библиометрии в интернетеunclassified

Altmetrics, webometrics and informetrics as the complementary vectors in the modern bibliometrics

Вахрушев

2019

Naučnye i tehničeskie biblioteki

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Альтметрики, вебометрики и информетрики как взаимодополняющие направления в современной библиометрии Современная библиометрия основана на детальном изучении в интернете показателей деятельности научного работника. Отмечено, что большинству отечественных учёных трудно разобраться во множестве различных индикаторов и оценить свой уровень влияния на современную науку. Активное и успешное развитие научной мысли и всего, что неразрывно связано с научной деятельностью на протяжении ХХ в., выявило актуальную проблему: измерение влияния результатов научных исследований. Участвуя в современной научной жизни, исследователь должен постоянно оценивать себя и своих коллег с точки зрения собственного и общего, коллективного, вклада в развитие науки с учётом международного опыта применения цифровых индикаторов в наукометрии. В статье проанализированы современные представления о значимости и роли цифровых индикаторов в наукометрии в целом и библиометрии в частности при оценке современной науки и результатов научной деятельности учёных. Подчёркнуто, что широко известны индекс Хирша, импакт-фактор научного издания, менее известен Eigenfactor (собственный фактор), но мало кто знает о применении альтметрик и информетрик. Это первая работа из серии статей, посвящённых практическому использованию цифровых индикаторов библиометрии в повседневной жизни учёного. Работа выполнена в рамках госзадания на 2019 г. Ключевые слова: библиометрия, наукометрия, альтметрики, вебометрики. Науч. и техн. б-ки, 2019, № 8 68 Altmetrics, webometrics and informetrics as the complementary vectors in the modern bibliometrics Modern practical experience in bibliometrics is based on the scrupulous study of researchers' performance on the Internet. Most of the Russian scientists are confused by an array of indicators, and are unable to assess their own level of influence on modern science. The dynamic and successful development of science and related scientific and research activities throughout the twentieth century has revealed the vital problem of measuring the effects (impacts) of research findings. Participating in the academic life, the researchers have to evaluate constantly themselves and the colleagues in terms of assessing individual and collective contribution and using "digital" scientometrical indicators. The author reviews the modern perception of the significance and role of "digital" indicators in scientometrics on the whole, and in bibliometrics, in particular, in assessing modern science and its findings. While such indicators as Hirsch index, impact factor of scientific publications are the widely-known indicators, and Eigenfactor (native factor) is familiar to the few, almost no one knows what altmetrics and informetrics are and how to apply them. This article will make the first work in the series on the practical aspects of applying "digital" bibliometrical indicators in the daily researcher's routine. The study is accomplished within the framework of the state order for 2019.

show abstract

“…Evidence suggests that ECRs were under-represented as key researchers in impact submissions. Whilst this might be deemed unsurprising considering the time required for impact to mature and become verifiable, some argue that the focus on impact weakens already precarious position of ERCs in higher education [10].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science

Marcella

Lockerbie

Bloice

et al. 2017

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early- and mid-career researchers will shape the future of library and information science (LIS) research and it is crucial they be well placed to engage with the research impact agenda. Their understanding of research impact may influence their capacity to be returned to research excellence framework (REF), the UK’s research quality assessment tool, as well as their ability to access research funding. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study exploring how the research impact agenda is influencing early- and mid-career researcher behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 early- and mid-career researchers. While enthusiastic about creating lasting impact, participants lack effective institutional support to maximise their own research impact. Participants demonstrate uncertainty about what REF impact is. The authors conclude that while there is evidence LIS academics engage with practice to maximise impact, they lack support in building impact and the discipline needs to do more to create opportunities for the academy and the profession to coalesce to identify objects for and deliver impactful research.

show abstract

Measuring the Impact of Research: Lessons from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014

Cited by 49 publications

References 16 publications

Guidance for standardising quantitative indicators of impact within REF case studies

Guidance for standardising quantitative indicators of impact within REF case studies

Altmetrics, webometrics and informetrics as the complementary vectors in the modern bibliometrics

The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About