Proof over promise: Moving citation metric systems beyond journal impact towards a career impact approach.

Publishing in a high-impact journal carries the implicit promise that the article will also be highly cited. But the proof of this logic remains unsubstantiated. By combining more accurate citation metrics, like the hIa-index and the citation-per-author-per-year metric, Anne-Wil Harzing and Wilfred Mijnhardt provide a more substantial alternative to the narrow journal-based metric. This combined metric provides a more reliable comparison between academics in different disciplines and at different career stages

Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business

The Dutch Economics top-40, based on publications in ISI listed journals, is - to the best of our knowledge - the oldest ranking of individual academics in Economics and is well accepted in the Dutch academic community. However, this ranking is based on publication volume, rather than on the actual impact of the publications in question. This paper therefore uses two relatively new metrics, the citations per author per year (CAY) metric and the individual annual h-index (hIa) to provide two alternative, citation-based, rankings of Dutch academics in Economics & Business. As a data source, we use Google Scholar instead of ISI to provide a more comprehensive measure of impact, including citations to and from publications in non-ISI listed journals, books, working and conference papers. The resulting rankings are shown to be substantially different from the original ranking based on publications. Just like other research metrics, the CAY or hIa-index should never be used as the sole criterion to evaluate academics. However, we do argue that the hIa-index and the related citations per author per year metric provide an important additional perspective over and above a ranking based on publications in high impact journals alone. Citation-based rankings are also shown to inject a higher level of diversity in terms of age, gender, discipline and academic affiliation and thus appear to be more inclusive of a wider range of scholarship

A New Future for Research; To become catalysts for social change, schools of business and management must choose a different scholarly path.

<p>How do business schools contribute to the greater good through their research? How can they augment those contributions further? This article reflects On The Price of Rigor, why 'Blue Sky Research' Is Not Enough, and Why Business Schools Need to Put a Premium on Impact. It provides a Clear and Shared Vision and some advice for deans on 3 fronts to start their pathways of change.</p><p>Business schools need a shared vision of their research future. At the moment, this vision is still hazy, but it is becoming clearer as research councils, funding bodies, accrediting bodies, and key global stakeholder networks—such as the U.N. Global Compact and the World Economic Forum—actively explore the possibilities.</p><p>Whether schools are public or private, full-service or postgraduate, freestanding or embedded in larger universities, they all can fundamentally adopt one of <strong>three key models</strong> to reposition their research: </p><p><strong>Model 1: The broker model.</strong> Under this model, the business school is part of a wider institution and plays the role of co-producer with other disciplines. Its faculty seek to work with the school's partners to generate more impact and value together. The broker model can be effective if a business school's parent university values it as a research entity in its own right. Unfortunately, parent institutions too often exploit and devalue the knowledge production of business schools to drive investment in STEM-oriented fields considered more "fundamental."</p><p><strong>Model 2: The relevance model.</strong> Here, schools incorporate real-world relevance into the existing core of their research portfolios. Essential to this model are not only rigor and relevance but also an emphasis on making scholarly research accessible to practitioners. The limitation of this model is that it still emphasizes scholarly publication over the translation of research for practice.  </p><p><strong>Model 3: The catalyzing model.</strong> This model, which has the notion of co-creation at its core, moves business schools from an emphasis on "linear valorization," in which schools and faculty are the primary beneficiaries of research, to an emphasis on "dual validation," which recognizes that business and management research is a social science in which schools co-produce research and solutions with key societal stakeholder groups.</p&gt

[Debate] The Journal Impact Factor has now lost all of its credibility

No description supplie

Development of a novel and more holistic approach for assessing impact in health and medical research:The Research Impact Assessment Framework

Considered investment in health and medical research (HMR) is critical for fostering a healthcare system that is sustainable, effective, responsive, and innovative. While several tools exist to measure the impact of research, few assess the research environment that nurtures and supports impactful research and the strategic alignment of research with societal needs. This perspective article discusses the limitations of existing assessment tools and presents a novel Research Impact Assessment Framework designed to enable more strategic and targeted investment towards HMR, having the potential for significant public benefit.</p