Search results

The study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.

A total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.

The mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.

The study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.

The study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

The paper presents a research methodology that could be used to carry out a systematic literature review on the current state of the art of the technological development in the field of the digitalization and unphysicalization of supply chains (SCs). A three-dimensional conceptual framework focusing on the relationship between Digital Technologies (DTs), business processes and SC performance is presented. The study identifies the emerging practices and areas of SC management that could be positively affected by the implementation of DTs. With this in mind, the emerging practices have a high probability to be considered future best practices.

A systematic literature review was conducted on DTs in SC management. The methodology used aims to algorithmically and objectively standardize the information incorporated into thousands of scientific documents. Selected papers were analyzed to investigate the recent literature on SC digitalization and unphysicalization. A total of 87 DTs were selected to be analyzed and subsequently grouped into 11 macro-categories. 17 business processes linked to SC management are taken into account and 17 different impacts on SC management are presented. From a set of 1,585 papers, 5,060 emerging practices were collected and singularly summarized combining DT, business process and impact on SC performance.

A unique analytical perspective provided represents an important evolution when trying to organize the current literature on SC management. The widely used DTs in the practices and the most considered business processes and impacts are highlighted and described. The three-dimensional conceptual framework is graphically represented to allow for the emergence of the best combinations of DT, business process and impact on SC performance. These combinations suggest the most promising areas for the implementation of the emerging practices for SC digitalization and unphysicalization. Additional findings identify and define the most important contexts in which Big Data contributes to SC performance.

The research methodology used is offering progress through which to systemize the current practices as well as detect the potential of digitalization and unphysicalization under the three-dimensional conceptual framework. The paper provides a structured proposal for promising future research directions, assuming that the five research gaps as findings of this research could be the basis for prescriptions, as well as a future research agenda and theory development. Moreover, this research contributes to current managerial issues concerning SC management, referred to data and information management, efficiency and productivity of SC processes, market performance, SC relationship management and risk management in SC.

Several frameworks have been developed to map and document scientific societal interaction and impact, each reflecting the specific forms of impact and interaction that characterize different academic fields. The ReAct taxonomy was developed to register data about “productive interactions” and provide an overview of research activities within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose of the present research is to examine whether the SSH-oriented taxonomy is relevant to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines when clarifying societal interactions and impact, and whether the taxonomy adds value to the traditional STEM impact indicators such as citation scores and H-index.

The research question was investigated through qualitative interviews with nine STEM researchers. During the interviews, the ReAct taxonomy and visual research profiles based on the ReAct categories were used to encourage and ensure in-depth discussions. The visual research profiles were based on publicly available material on the research activities of the interviewees.

The study provided an insight into how STEM researchers assessed the importance of mapping societal interactions as a background for describing research impact, including which indicators are useful for expressing societal relevance and impact. With regard to the differences between STEM and SSH, the study identified a high degree of cohesion and uniformity in the importance of indicators. Differences were more closely related to the purpose of mapping and impact assessment than between scientific fields. The importance of amalgamation and synergy between academic and societal activities was also emphasised and clarified.

The findings highlight the importance of mapping societal activities and impact, and that societal indicators should be seen as inspiring guidelines depending on purpose and use. A significant contribution is the identification of both uniformity and diversity between the main fields of SSH and STEM, as well as the connection between the choice of indicators and the purpose of mapping, e.g. for impact measurement, profiling, or career development.

The work sheds light on STEM researchers' views on research mapping, visualisation and impact assessment, including similarities and differences between STEM and SSH research.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the scholarly impact agenda in the context of work-based and workplace research, and to propose new directions for research and practice.

This paper combines a contemporary literature review with case vignettes and reflections from practice to develop more nuanced understandings, and highlights future directions for making sense of impact in the context of work-based learning research approaches.

This paper argues that three dimensions to making sense of impact need to be more nuanced in relation to workplace research: interactional elements of workplace research processes have the potential for discursive pathways to impact, presence (and perhaps non-action) can act as a pathway to impact, and the narrative nature of time means that there is instability in making sense of impact over time.

The paper proposes a number of implications for practitioner-researchers, universities/research organisations, and focusses on three key areas: the amplification of research ethics in workplace research, the need for axiological shifts towards sustainability and the need to explicate axiological orientation in research.

This paper offers a contemporary review of the international impact debate in the specific context of work-based and workplace research approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relevance of academic research in the business and management studies stream to various stakeholders. The stakeholder theory is used to examine the influence of research on various key beneficiaries and investigate the link between the domain of research and locus of impact.

Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF 2014) conducted in the UK provides a useful context and data for our research as REF 2014 encouraged universities to submit the information on research activities and their beneficiaries. This information is in the form of impact case studies which details the research, location of research and beneficiaries.

The findings suggest that research with an international focus has a positive impact on industry stakeholders, especially multinational corporations as well as non-governmental organizations. Second, it shows how research has made a commercial impact in innovation and small and medium enterprises’ growth while having limited impact on other domains such as social, legal, political and healthcare. More broadly, the findings indicate the degree of regional diversity. Also, the wider results-driven agenda in the UK can overestimate the research contribution to some stakeholders in the society.

Self-selection bias as universities might submit only few case studies.

For research to generate long-term benefits for the wider society, it needs to engage more deeply with the whole range of stakeholders.

This study contributes to understanding how research is consumed by stakeholders. The results indicate that while locally relevant research encourages local consumption; it is not assimilated across various stakeholders.

The purpose of this study is to examine scholarly impact which is critical to universities in their aspiration to create, disseminate and apply knowledge. However, scholarly impact is an elusive concept. First, the authors present a conceptual model to clarify different dimensions of scholarly impact (i.e. theory and research, education, organizations and society) and four key stakeholders (i.e. other researchers, students, practitioners and policy makers). Second, the authors provide actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators on how to enhance impact. The scholarly impact model is flexible, expandable, scalable and adaptable to universities in different regions of the world and with different strategic priorities.

The authors conducted a general review of the literature and offered a multidimensional and multistakeholder model of scholarly impact to guide future actions aimed at enhancing scholarly impact.

The authors describe the multidimensional and multistakeholder nature of the critical and yet elusive concept of scholarly impact. The authors delineate multiple dimensions of impact, different stakeholders involved and recommendations for enhancing scholarly impact in the future.

The authors offer practical and actionable recommendations on how to enhance scholarly impact. For university administrators, the authors recommend aligning scholarly impact goals with actions and resource-allocation decisions; ensuring that performance management and reward systems are consistent with impact goals; being strategic in selecting a journal list; developing a strong doctoral program; and promoting practical knowledge and applications. For researchers and educators, the authors recommend developing a personal scholarly impact plan; becoming an academic decathlete; finding ways to affect multiple impact dimensions simultaneously; and leveraging social media to broaden impact on external stakeholders. Implementing these recommendations will benefit other researchers, students, practitioners (e.g. managers, consultants) and policy makers.

The authors provide an innovative way of conceptualizing scholarly impact. In turn, the conceptual analysis results in actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators to enhance impact.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect critically upon current debates and tensions in the governance of research in the UK and more widely, particularly the imperative that social science research should demonstrate impact beyond the academy.

Drawing implicitly upon the Bevir’s theory of governance, the paper positions discourses about “research excellence and research impact” as elite narratives that are rooted genealogically in forms of managerial audit culture which seek to govern the practices of social science academics. The paper reviews relevant literature, draws upon key contributions that have shaped debate and refers to the author’s own research and experiences of “research impact”.

Initiatives such as the UK’s “Research Excellence Framework” can be understood as a form of governance that further enables already present neo-liberalising tendencies in the academy. The “impact agenda” has both negative (e.g. it can distort research priorities and can lead to overstatement of “real world” effects) and positive potential (e.g. to provide institutional space for work towards social justice, in line with long-standing traditions of critical social science and “public sociology”).

There is a need for more critical research and theoretical reflection on the value, threats, limitations and potential of current forms of research governance and “impact”.

To date, there are very few article-length, critical discussions of these developments and issues in research governance, even fewer that connect these debates to longer-standing radical imperatives in social science.

Building on the concept of “impact literacy” established in a previous paper from Bayley and Phipps, here we extend the principles of impact literacy in light of further insights into sector practice. More specifically, we focus on three additions needed in response to the sector-wide growth of impact: (1) differential levels of impact literacy; (2) institutional impact literacy and environment for impact; and (3) issues of ethics and values in research impact. This paper invites the sector to consider the relevance of all dimensions in establishing, maintaining and strengthening impact within the research landscape. We explore implications for individual professional development, institutional capacity building and ethical collaboration to maximise societal benefit.

Although supporting and assessing the non-academic “impact” of research are not entirely new developments in higher education, academics and research institutions are under increasing pressure to produce work that has a measurable influence outside the academy. With a view to supporting the solution of complex societal issues with evidence and expertise, and against the background of increased emphasis on impact in the United Kingdom's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) and a proliferation of impact guides and tools, this article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework “The 7Cs of Impact” – Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

Drawing on core elements of the Policy Institute at King's College London's Impact by Design training course and the authors' practical experience in supporting and delivering impact, this paper outlines how this framework can help address key aspects across the lifecycle of a research project and plan, from identifying the intended impact of research and writing it into grants and proposals, to engaging project stakeholders and assessing whether the project has had the desired impact.

While preparations for current and future REF submissions may benefit from using this framework, this paper sets out the “7Cs” with a more holistic view of impact in mind, seeking to aid researchers in identifying, capturing, and communicating how research projects can and do contribute to the improvement in society.

The need for a more structured methodology than currently exists for describing the impact of academic research is widely acknowledged. The most widely used research information standard, CERIF, does not currently allow the encoding of research impact in a structured way: this project devised and tested an extension to CERIF to address this omission. The paper seeks to discuss these points.

The core methodology of the project is a series of extensions to the CERIF model to encode “impact statements”, indicators of impact and measures as evidence for them. These can be linked to persons, organisational units or research outputs. This model is supported by a small semantic taxonomy of indicators and measures. The model was tested by evaluating it against current information environments, and by assessing its compatibility with CERIF and non‐CERIF compliant current research information systems.

Despite some concerns expressed about the validity of reducing qualitative evidence of impact to atomistic measures, and about a general paucity of such data in existing systems, the model tested well against working environments. It offers the potential for reducing workloads and more continuous assessment of research impact within its stakeholder communities.

No substantive methodology for encoding impact statements existed in CERIF prior to this project. In addition, the atomistic, quantifiable approach to describing impact is relatively unexplored in the higher education community, but offers substantial advantages. The work is of relevance to research managers, developers, system designers and metadata specialists.