Dataset Information

Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To provide an overview of altmetrics, including their potential benefits and limitations, how they may be obtained, and their role in assessing pharmacoepidemiologic research impact. METHODS:Our review was informed by compiling relevant literature identified through searching multiple health research databases (PubMed, Embase, and CIHNAHL) and grey literature sources (websites, blogs, and reports). We demonstrate how pharmacoepidemiologists, in particular, may use altmetrics to understand scholarly impact and knowledge translation by providing a case study of a drug-safety study conducted by the Canadian Network of Observational Drug Effect Studies. RESULTS:A common approach to measuring research impact is the use of citation-based metrics, such as an article's citation count or a journal's impact factor. "Alternative" metrics, or altmetrics, are increasingly supported as a complementary measure of research uptake in the age of social media. Altmetrics are nontraditional indicators that capture a diverse set of traceable, online research-related artifacts including peer-reviewed publications and other research outputs (software, datasets, blogs, videos, posters, policy documents, presentations, social media posts, wiki entries, etc). CONCLUSION:Compared with traditional citation-based metrics, altmetrics take a more holistic view of research impact, attempting to capture the activity and engagement of both scholarly and nonscholarly communities. Despite the limited theoretical underpinnings, possible commercial influence, potential for gaming and manipulation, and numerous data quality-related issues, altmetrics are promising as a supplement to more traditional citation-based metrics because they can ingest and process a larger set of data points related to the flow and reach of scholarly communication from an expanded pool of stakeholders. Unlike citation-based metrics, altmetrics are not inherently rooted in the research publication process, which includes peer review; it is unclear to what extent they should be used for research evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Gamble JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7004200 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.

Gamble J M JM Traynor Robyn L RL Gruzd Anatoliy A Mai Philip P Dormuth Colin R CR Sketris Ingrid S IS

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 20180324

<h4>Purpose</h4>To provide an overview of altmetrics, including their potential benefits and limitations, how they may be obtained, and their role in assessing pharmacoepidemiologic research impact.<h4>Methods</h4>Our review was informed by compiling relevant literature identified through searching multiple health research databases (PubMed, Embase, and CIHNAHL) and grey literature sources (websites, blogs, and reports). We demonstrate how pharmacoepidemiologists, in particular, may use altmetri ...[more]

PMID: 29575351

Similar Datasets

Project description:On December 31st 2019, the World Health Organization China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology detected in Wuhan City. The cause of the syndrome was a new type of coronavirus isolated on January 7th 2020 and named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since January 2020 an ever increasing number of scientific works related to the new pathogen have appeared in literature. Identifying relevant research outcomes at very early stages is challenging. In this work we use COVID-19 as a use-case for investigating: (1) which tools and frameworks are mostly used for early scholarly communication; (2) to what extent altmetrics can be used to identify potential impactful research in tight (i.e. quasi-zero-day) time-windows. A literature review with rigorous eligibility criteria is performed for gathering a sample composed of scientific papers about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 appeared in literature in the tight time-window ranging from January 15th 2020 to February 24th 2020. This sample is used for building a knowledge graph that represents the knowledge about papers and indicators formally. This knowledge graph feeds a data analysis process which is applied for experimenting with altmetrics as impact indicators. We find moderate correlation among traditional citation count, citations on social media, and mentions on news and blogs. Additionally, correlation coefficients are not inflated by indicators associated with zero values, which are quite common at very early stages after an article has been published. This suggests there is a common intended meaning of the citational acts associated with aforementioned indicators. Then, we define a method, i.e. the Comprehensive Impact Score (CIS), that harmonises different indicators for providing a multi-dimensional impact indicator. CIS shows promising results as a tool for selecting relevant papers even in a tight time-window. Our results foster the development of automated frameworks aimed at helping the scientific community in identifying relevant work even in case of limited literature and observation time.

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state's major universities.MethodsThis study applied Buxton and Hanney's Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011-2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed.ResultsThe BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future.ConclusionsResearch impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.

Publications

Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets