Explore the vast range of titles available.

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

An ongoing conversation in the Information Systems literature addresses the concern, “How can we conduct research that makes a difference?” A shortage of high-impact research will, over time, challenge the identity and weaken the viability of IS as an academic discipline. This paper presents the systematic high-impact research model (SHIR), an approach to conducting high-impact research. SHIR embodies the insight gained from three streams of high-impact research programs spanning more than 50 years. The SHIR framework rests on the proposition that IS researchers can produce higher-impact contributions by developing long-term research programs around major real-world issues, as opposed to ad hoc projects addressing a small piece of a large problem. These persistent research programs focus on addressing the entirety of an issue, by leveraging multidisciplinary, multiuniversity research centers that employ a breadth of research methods and large-scale projects. To function effectively, SHIR programs must be sustained by academic and practitioner partnerships, research centers, and outreach activities. We argue that SHIR research programs increase the likelihood of high impact research.

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available. In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school’s learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders’ needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice. The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school’s faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.

Background The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. Methods A total of 1386 projects were identified as ‘public health research’ by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000–2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis. Results In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as ‘public health research’ are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local ‘unintended’ impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. Conclusions Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

Research impact is high on the agendas of governments and funders all over the world. As participatory action-oriented research (PAR) intends to have an impact – positive changes in policy and practice – interest in PAR is rising. But although impact may sound clear, it is susceptible to various interpretations. Hence assessing the impact of PAR is a challenge. In this article we describe a PAR project with multi-stakeholder participation at its core, and focus on the effectiveness (co-impact) of this project. We elaborate on two interpretations of impact: findings-based and process-based impact. Although interest in research impact tends to prioritise findings-based impact which focuses on substantive results and shows little or no attention for the effects of the participation process (process-based impact), we acknowledge both types of impact. We equally value the process-based impact, as it does justice to the potential richness of participation. In presenting our research approach and findings, we provide insight in how both findings-based (substantive results) and process-based (less tangible effects) impact can be generated and assessed. We experienced that strict vigilance was crucial for detecting process related effects, without comprising the findings-based ones. Our research approach, with its consciously chosen sequence of actions, a variety of data gathering methods, and informed selection of stakeholder groups, appears to pay off in generating co-impact. Additionally, the operationalisation of a conceptual impact framework in an applicable impact assessment tool, proved to be useful for discovering less tangible and even hidden effects at the individual and group levels of stakeholders both within and outside the PAR setting. We believe that focusing on substantive results only undervalues the richness of the process of participation and its related effects.

Background Measuring the policy and practice impacts of research is becoming increasingly important. Policy impacts can be measured from two directions – tracing forward from research and tracing backwards from a policy outcome. In this review, we compare these approaches and document the characteristics of studies assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research. Methods Keyword searches of electronic databases were conducted in December 2016. Included studies were published between 1995 and 2016 in English and reported methods and findings of studies measuring policy impacts of specified health research, or research use in relation to a specified health policy outcome, and reviews reporting methods of research impact assessment. Using an iterative data extraction process, we developed a framework to define the key elements of empirical studies (assessment reason, assessment direction, assessment starting point, unit of analysis, assessment methods, assessment endpoint and outcomes assessed) and then documented the characteristics of included empirical studies according to this framework. Results We identified 144 empirical studies and 19 literature reviews. Empirical studies were derived from two parallel streams of research of equal size, which we termed ‘research impact assessments’ and ‘research use assessments’. Both streams provided insights about the influence of research on policy and utilised similar assessment methods, but approached measurement from opposite directions. Research impact assessments predominantly utilised forward tracing approaches while the converse was true for research use assessments. Within each stream, assessments focussed on narrow or broader research/policy units of analysis as the starting point for assessment, each with associated strengths and limitations. The two streams differed in terms of their relative focus on the contributions made by specific research (research impact assessments) versus research more generally (research use assessments) and the emphasis placed on research and the activities of researchers in comparison to other factors and actors as influencers of change. Conclusions The Framework presented in this paper provides a mechanism for comparing studies within this broad field of research enquiry. Forward and backward tracing approaches, and their different ways of ‘looking’, tell a different story of research-based policy change. Combining approaches may provide the best way forward in terms of linking outcomes to specific research, as well as providing a realistic picture of research influence.

In this essay, we argue that colleges of education, particularly those at research-intensive institutions, favor simplistic notions of scholarly impact and that this trend has concerning implications for the field, for researchers, and for the public at large. After describing the challenges and shortcomings of the current models of research assessment in education, we outline an alternative proposal in which trustworthiness and usability of research would complement traditional metrics of scholarly relevance. This proposal encourages a twofold approach to research assessment that involves (1) a more thorough analysis of the limitations and problems generated by the use of simplistic notions of scholarly impact, and (2) a commitment to the implementation of more equitable systems based on a broader range of assessment measures to assess faculty research contributions.

With the shift in their social roles, modern zoos and aquariums are required to develop scientific research. Although zoos and aquariums worldwide have reported an increase in the number of papers they publish and the diversification of their fields in recent decades, the specific circumstances in Japan are slightly unclear. We listed peer-reviewed papers authored by Japanese zoos and aquariums using search engines and quantitatively evaluated the changes in the number of papers published over 62 years. Our results showed that papers published in Japan have increased remarkably since the 1990s, and research fields have diversified as in the rest of the world. In particular, joint research with research institutes has seen an upward trend, and the instances of English-language papers have increased. Meanwhile, the content of the research was biased. In zoos, research on animal welfare has been increasing, but the focus was heavily biased toward captive mammals. Aquariums contributed to the understanding of local ecosystems through the fundamental study of wildlife, but there were fewer papers on improving husbandry. Our results indicated that while research by Japanese zoos and aquariums is developing, research on welfare, conservation, and education regarding native endangered species must still be improved.

PurposeResearch impact has taken on increased importance at both a micro- and macro-level and is a key factor today in shaping the careers of real estate researchers. This has seen a range of research impact metrics become global benchmarks when assessing research impact at the individual academic level and journal level. Whilst recognising the limitations of research impact metrics, this paper uses these research impact metrics to identify the leading research impact researchers in real estate, as well as the leading real estate journals in the real estate impact space. The nexus between research quality and research impact is also articulated. As well as focusing on research quality, strategies are identified for the effective incorporation of research impact into a real estate researcher's agenda to assist their research careers; particularly for Early Career Researchers in real estate.Design/methodology/approachThe research impact profile of over 150 real estate researchers and 22 real estate journals was assessed using Google Scholar and Publish or Perish. Using the research impact metrics of the h-index, total citations and i10, the leading high impact real estate researchers as well as the high impact real estate journals are identified.FindingsBased in these research impact metrics, the leading real estate researchers in impactful real estate research are identified. Whilst being US focused, there is clear evidence of increasing roles by ERES, AsRES and PRRES players. The leading real estate journals in the impact space are identified, including both real estate-specific journals and the broader planning/urban policy journals, as well as being beyond just the standard US real estate journals. Researcher career strategies are also identified to see both research quality and research impact included as balanced elements in a real estate researcher's career strategy.Practical implicationsWith research impact playing an increased role in all real estate researchers' careers, the insights from this paper provide strong empirical evidence for effective strategies to expand the focus on the impact of their real estate research agendas. This sees a balanced strategy around both research quality and research impact as the most effective strategy for real estate researchers to achieve their research career goals.Originality/valueResearch impact has taken on increased importance globally and is an important factor in shaping real estate researchers' careers. Using research impact metrics, this is the first paper to rigorously and empirically identify the leading research impact players and journals in real estate, as well as identifying strategies for the more effective inclusion of impact in real estate researchers' agendas.

Objective. Mucormycosis is a fungal infection in humans where the causative pathogens belong to the order of Mucorales. The fungal pathogens are also known as black fungi based on morphological characteristics. Mucormycosis is increasingly observed in patients suffering from the COVID-19 virus from different states of India, wherein steroids are being used as standard therapy. The prevalence of coronavirus disease and the infection by the black fungus (Mucormycosis) poses several challenges to its mitigation. The purpose of the study is to analyze the research trends of mucormycosis using bibliometric methods. Design/Methodology/approach. The study utilizes standard bibliometric methods to analyze bibliographic literature on Mucormycosis retrieved from the SCOPUS database. All keywords (MeSH terms) associated with Mucormycosis were used to frame a search query and retrieve bibliographic data from the database. The bibliometric indicators were used to assess research productivity in mucormycosis for publication growth; subject distribution; productive authors, institutes, and countries; journals, highly cited articles; and hot spots and research progress based on the keyword analysis. VOSviewer network visualization tools have been used for mapping research. Results/Discussion. The analysis of 25,251 bibliographic records shows exponential growth in literature during seventy years. Though mucormycosis research is spread across the globe, the prevalence of the study is widespread in the South-East Asian region. Author keyword analysis shows that the research focuses on the medical subject and expands into multidisciplinary research areas. Conclusion. Bibliometrics always provides insight into the research progress in any field or topic of study. This study provides insight into research progress in Mucormycosis. The researcher may use the results to analyze different areas of mucormycosis and utilize the key concepts for further research, especially researching better clinical practices and drug developments. Originality/Value. Through this paper, it is quite clear that the appearance of research contribution on mucormycosis coupled with COVID-19 has opened a new direction of research that clinical researchers take up in future research.