↓ Skip to main content

ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,143)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
208 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0281-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula Adam, Pavel V. Ovseiko, Jonathan Grant, Kathryn E. A. Graham, Omar F. Boukhris, Anne-Maree Dowd, Gert V. Balling, Rikke N. Christensen, Alexandra Pollitt, Mark Taylor, Omar Sued, Saba Hinrichs-Krapels, Maite Solans‐Domènech, Heidi Chorzempa

Abstract

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available.In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice.The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school's faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 208 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 20%
Other 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Master 17 9%
Unspecified 10 5%
Other 48 24%
Unknown 44 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Unspecified 11 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 5%
Other 47 24%
Unknown 56 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2022.
All research outputs
#198,225
of 21,435,803 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 1,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,719
of 400,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,435,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them