Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38406384›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2021

Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society.

Eric A Jensen, Mark Reed, Aaron M Jensen, Alexander Gerber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Eric A JensenSRUC Aberdeen, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Scotland, AB21 9YA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8332-4507
Mark ReedSRUC Aberdeen, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Scotland, AB21 9YA, UK.
Aaron M JensenInstitute for Methods Innovation, Arcata, USA.
Alexander GerberInstitute for Science and Innovation Communication, Briener Str 25, Kleve, 47533, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9737-1267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective research impact development is essential to address global challenges. This commentary highlights key issues facing research impact development as a nascent professional field of practice. We argue that those working on research impact should take a strategic, 'evidence-based' approach to maximize potential research benefits and minimize potential harms. We identify key features of evidence-based good practice in the context of research impact work. This includes integrating relevant research and theory into professional decision-making, drawing on a diversity of academic disciplines offering pertinent insights. Such an integration of scholarship and practice will improve the capacity of research impact work to make a positive difference for society. Moving the focus of research impact work to earlier stages in the research and innovation process through stakeholder engagement and anticipatory research can also boost its effectiveness. The research impact evidence base should be combined with the right kind of professional capacities and practical experience to enhance positive impact. Such capacities need to be developed through relevant education and training, for example, in participatory methods and social inclusion. Such training for research impact work needs to forge strong links between research impact scholarship and practice. Finally, there is a need for improvements in the evidence base for research impact to make it more practically useful.

Indexed as

evidence-based research impactimpact developmentResearch impact

Identifiers

PMID38406384
PMCPMC10884597

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.