[{"id":255,"title":"Assessing 'ownership' of useful evidence for measuring impact and giving credit","sha":"03240805b43fd98ec4fc10424cbe3eef","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"An evidence synthesis, such as a systematic review, guideline or other evidence summary, will include collated and filtered data, typically from published reports of primary studies. Those studies were instigated, carried out, supported and to varying degrees 'owned' by, or associated with, individuals, teams, institutions, funders, publishers, and others. The 'ownership' includes intellectual and legal components. Stakeholders, driven by various incentives, wish to demonstrate impact of their output. Impact may reasonably include influence on evidence syntheses and other secondary outputs designed to summarise the status quo or make the case for change. But it would be interesting to look backwards from the starting point of, for example, a systematic review. The review itself has impact, by influencing guidelines, policy and practice, and that impact comes partly from the people and organisations responsible for that synthesis work, and partly from the data and analysis that formed the basis of the review. Impact is therefore linked with an array of individuals and academic and commercial organisations (including publishers), with varying degrees and types of rights or responsibilities for the work. What kinds of formulae or rules  could be applied to the array to present a reasonable statement about the 'ownership' of impact?","created_at":"2015-11-10T00:29:22.546Z","updated_at":"2015-11-10T06:00:38.954Z","zenodo_id":68480,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.33540","subject":null,"tags":["evidence","systematic reviews","evidence synthesis","credit","impact","intellectual property"],"vote_count":0,"view_count":1,"score":0.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"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}]