This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

The Answer Is 17 Years, What Is the Question

The Social Contexts of Research. Edited by Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin. Pp. xii + 409. (John Wiley: New York and London, August 1972.) £5.65.

Sociology of Science

The majority of academic papers are scarcely cited while a few others are highly cited. A large number of studies indicate that there are many factors influencing the number of citations. An actual review is missing that provides a comprehensive review of the factors predicting the frequency of citations. In this review, we performed a search in WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Medline to retrieve relevant papers. In overall, 2087 papers were retrieved among which 198 relevant papers were included in the study. Three general categories with twenty eight factors were identified to be related to the number of citations: Category one: "paper related factors": quality of paper; novelty and interest of subject; characteristics of fields and study topics; methodology; document type; study design; characteristics of results and discussion; use of figures and appendix in papers; characteristics of the titles and abstracts; characteristics of references; length of paper; age of paper; early citation and speed of citation; accessibility and visibility of papers. Category two: "journal related factors": journal impact factor; language of journal; scope of journal; form of publication. Category three: "author(s) related factors": number of authors; author's reputation; author's academic rank; self-citations; international and national collaboration of authors; authors' country; gender, age and race of authors; author's productivity; organizational features; and funding. Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors' gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.

Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature

Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?

Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.

/pdf/who-reads-research-articles-an-altmetrics-analysis-of-2phwvns4pf.pdf

Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories

The average age at which U.S. researchers receive their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific productivity and impact of researchers. Drawing on a sizeable sample of 6,388 university professors in Quebec who have published at least one paper between 2000 and 2007, our results identify two turning points in the professors' careers. A first turning point is visible at age 40 years, where researchers start to rely on older literature and where their productivity increases at a slower pace—after having increased sharply since the beginning of their career. A second turning point can be seen around age 50, when researchers are the most productive whereas their average scientific impact is at its lowest. Our results also show that older professors publish fewer first-authored papers and move closer to the end of the list of co-authors. Although average scientific impact per paper decreases linearly until about age 50, the average number of papers in highly cited journals and among highly cited papers rises continuously until retirement. Our results show clearly that productivity and impact are not a simple and declining function of age and that we must take into account the collaborative aspects of scientific research. Science is a collective endeavor and, as our data shows, researchers of all ages play a significant role in its dynamic.

The Effects of Aging on Researchers' Publication and Citation Patterns

As bibliometric indicators are objective, reliable, and cost-effective measures of peer-reviewed research outputs, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in research assessment/management. Recently, a bibliometric approach was developed and integrated within the evaluation framework of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC). This approach helped address the following questions that were difficult to answer objectively using alternative methods such as program documentation review and key informant interviews: (a) Has the NCIC peer-review process selected outstanding Canadian scientists in cancer research? (b) Have the NCIC grants contributed to increasing the scientific performance of supported researchers? (c) How do the NCIC-supported researchers compare to their neighbors supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute? Using the NCIC evaluation as a case study, this article demonstrates the usefulness of bibliometrics to address key evaluation questions and discusses its integration, along complementary indicators (e.g., peer ratings), in a practice-driven research evaluation continuum.

/pdf/bibliometrics-as-a-performance-measurement-tool-for-research-3ui64j6twm.pdf

Jean-Pierre Robitaille

Papers

The Effects of Aging on Researchers' Publication and Citation Patterns

Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada

Comparative Scientometric Assessment of the Results of ERC Funded Projects