ArticlePloS one2011
Quantifying the impact and relevance of scientific research.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Identifying Priority Science Information Needs for Managing Public Lands.Environmental management · 2025Article
- Addressing priority questions of conservation science with palaeontological data.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Review
- How much is my paper worth?Molecular biology of the cell · 2019Article
- Practitioner and scientist perceptions of successful amphibian conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2018Article
- Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology.Royal Society open science · 2017Article
- Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- Measuring the Impact of Research: Lessons from the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014.PloS one · 2016Article
- How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge.Ecological entomology · 2015Article
- Review
- Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2013Article
- Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- A preprogram appraisal of factors influencing research productivity among faculty at college of medicine, University of Lagos.Annals of African medicineArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Qualitative and quantitative methods are being developed to measure the impacts of research on society, but they suffer from serious drawbacks associated with linking a piece of research to its subsequent impacts. We have developed a method to derive impact scores for individual research publications according to their contribution to answering questions of quantified importance to end users of research. To demonstrate the approach, here we evaluate the impacts of research into means of conserving wild bee populations in the UK. For published papers, there is a weak positive correlation between our impact score and the impact factor of the journal. The process identifies publications that provide high quality evidence relating to issues of strong concern. It can also be used to set future research agendas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.