[{"id":393,"title":"From Publication to Impact: When publication isn’t enough for patients, measure what matters.","sha":"8a8e560f56a6ddc0423f00399a5e659f","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"The ultimate beneficiary of a biomedical journal article should be the patient. To realize this benefit, a publication must provide both the rational evidence plus a reason to act on the part of a healthcare professional. Sponsors of clinical trials support a huge volume of peer-reviewed publications. But, do we know if these achieve their ultimate goal?\r\n\r\nIt is not purely a question of measurement. We measure a lot. But, do we measure the right factors? Do we have the right tools to measure what is important?\r\n\r\nLet us start with what the industry is good at measuring: How many abstracts did you submit? Did we get 3 posters or 2 orals? Was the manuscript accepted? \r\n\r\nGoing back to our patient – do these metrics help evaluate real benefit? To address that point, we need to go further. We need to know that the publication has been read (with many prominent journals still failing to report usage metrics on a routine basis), and furthermore, when they are read, who is reading them and what change is occurring as a result? From our agency experience, usage metrics don’t correlate with journal impact factor, and neither often correlates with altmetrics, leaving observers to question which metrics are true measures of publication success and positive change, if any.  \r\n\r\nI suggest that we re-focus scholarly and scientific communication on impact, rather than just publication, and on metrics that matter, including intention and engagement. I also call on the publications community to welcome the patient’s voice into this dialogue, so that we stand a greater chance of ensuring clinical research has as opportunity to positively impact patient outcomes and lives.\r\n","created_at":"2017-07-07T15:50:38.633Z","updated_at":"2017-10-18T14:02:20.019Z","zenodo_id":835596,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.835596","subject":null,"tags":["altmetrics","bibliometrics","impact","patient voice"],"vote_count":1,"view_count":1,"score":1.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":90,"title":"The Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Analyzing Decision Making and Peer Review","sha":"a79dd10c3b3804e4797bf1882ebf401d","user_id":151,"state":"published","body":"The legitimacy of a funding agency in basic research depends at least on the following factors: \r\n* organization’s ability to minimize distortions in approval probability by its decision procedure\r\n* the scientific quality of results produced by funded research proposals\r\n* the acceptance of the procedures by the scientific community. \r\n\r\nTo ensure these requirements, the [FWF] (http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/) started a sequence of empirical studies which contain analyses of the decision making procedure (peer review) as well as statistical and bibliometric analyses of FWF funded proposals. A survey among the Austrian scientific community followed. Some of the analyses are conducted by the FWF itself, others by independent experts, eg. from the [MPG Munich] (http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/) or [CWTS Leiden.] (http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/) All results are [openly accessible.] (http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/about-the-fwf/publications/)\r\n\r\nOur endeavor will round off all these studies to summarize the results. Addressees of this (policy) paper are the scientific community, policy makers and the public. FWF’s goal is to address urban legends about its work, compare results and link them to get the big picture of FWF’s efforts during the last years. Among others we will address potential biases in our decision mechanisms, discuss outcomes and impacts and compare the results with the opinions of the scientific community.\r\n\r\n\r\n*[Falk Reckling](/users/df7f367ccf932e5acf3d918adda77a79), Ralph Reimann, [Klaus Zinöcker](/users/4a556c9956cef302c8f19c97a2adcc00), FWF*\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2015-02-23T08:39:47.441Z","updated_at":"2015-02-27T08:47:42.192Z","zenodo_id":23334,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15602","subject":null,"tags":["science_policy","researchers","research","evaluation","peer-review","bibliometrics"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]