Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27276219›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

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

Gobinda Chowdhury, Kushwanth Koya, Pete Philipson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical academics' experiences of REF2021.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gobinda ChowdhuryDepartment of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Pandon Building, Camden Street, Northumbria University, Newcastle City Campus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 1XE, United Kingdom.
Kushwanth KoyaDepartment of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Pandon Building, Camden Street, Northumbria University, Newcastle City Campus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 1XE, United Kingdom.
Pete PhilipsonDepartment of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Pandon Building, Camden Street, Northumbria University, Newcastle City Campus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 1XE, United Kingdom.
Northumbria University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impactful academic research plays a stellar role in society, pressing to ask the question of how one measures the impact created by different areas of academic research. Measuring the societal, cultural, economic and scientific impact of research is currently the priority of the National Science Foundation, European Commission and several research funding agencies. The recently concluded United Kingdom's national research quality exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, which piloted impact assessment as part of the overall evaluation offers a lens to view how impact of research in different disciplines can be measured. Overall research quality was assessed through quality of outputs, 'impact' and research environment. We performed two studies using the REF 2014 as a case study. The first study on 363 Impact Case Studies (ICSs) submitted in 5 research areas (UoAs) reveals that, in general, the impact scores were constructed upon a combination of factors i.e. quantity of quartile-one (Q1) publications, quantity and value of grants/income, number of researchers stated in the ICSs, spin-offs created, discoveries/patents and presentation of esteem data, informing researchers/ academics of the factors to consider in order to achieve a better impact score in research impact assessments. However, there were differences among disciplines in terms of the role played by the factors in achieving their overall scores for the ICSs. The outcome of this study is thus a set of impact indicators, and their relationship with the overall score of impact of research in different disciplines as determined in REF2014, which would in the first instance provide some answers to impact measures that would be useful for researchers in different disciplines. The second study extracts the general themes of impact reported by universities by performing a word frequency analysis in all the ICSs submitted in the five chosen research areas, which were substantially varied owing to their fields.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData AccuracyJournal Impact FactorHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID27276219
PMCPMC4898824
OpenAlexW2419419954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.