ArticlePloS one2021
How do researchers approach societal impact?
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- The communication of science within the framework of European Union-funded research projects: Exploring practitioners' experiences and perceptions.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Are we researching the right questions? Bibliometric analysis of undergraduate nursing thesis alignment with Peru's health priorities.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Framework development of the social impact of medical research utilization: Fuzzy Delphi approach.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- A sociological perspective on the challenges of displacing animal research within academia: the contribution of Bourdieu.NAM journal · 2025Article
- Assessing the Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts of Science Communication: A Quantitative Content Analysis of 128 Science Communication Projects.Science communication · 2024Article
- Integrating Rapid Evidence Generation and Synthesis in the Researcher's Methods Toolkit.Acta medica Philippina · 2023Article
- Do both the research community and the general public share an interest in the sleep-pain relationship, and do they influence each other?Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Promoting scientific literacy in evolution through citizen science.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Framework for Creating Successful Multidisciplinary Translational Research Teams.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on a communication-centered approach, this article examines how researchers approach societal impact, that is, what they think about societal impact in research governance, what their societal goals are, and how they use communication formats. Hence, this study offers empirical evidence on a group that has received remarkably little attention in the scholarly discourse on the societal impact of research-academic researchers. Our analysis is based on an empirical survey among 499 researchers in Germany conducted from April to June 2020. We show that most researchers regard societal engagement as part of their job and are generally in favor of impact evaluation. However, few think that societal impact is a priority at their institution, and even fewer think that institutional communication departments reach relevant stakeholders in society. Moreover, we show that researchers' societal goals and use of communication formats differ greatly between their disciplines and the types of organization that they work at. Our results add to the ongoing metascientific discourse on the relationship between science and society and offer empirical support for the hypothesis that assessment needs to be sensitive to disciplinary and organizational context factors.
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.