Merge pull request #64 from vtraag/add/intro-academic

Add academic impact introduction

_quarto.yml

@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ website:
       contents:
         - section: Academic Impact
           contents:
+            - indicator_templates/quarto/2_academic_impact/introduction_academic_impact.md
             - indicator_templates/quarto/2_academic_impact/academic_readership.qmd
             - indicator_templates/quarto/2_academic_impact/citation_impact.qmd
             - indicator_templates/quarto/2_academic_impact/collaboration_intensity.qmd

indicator_templates/quarto/2_academic_impact/introduction_academic_impact.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+author:
+    - name: V.A Traag
+      orcid: 0000-0003-3170-3879
+      affiliations:
+      - ref: cwts
+
+affiliations:
+- id: cwts
+  name: Leiden University
+  department: Centre for Science and Technology Studies
+  city: Leiden
+  country: the Netherlands
+---
+
+# Introduction to academic impact {#intro-academic-impact .unnumbered}
+
+<div>
+
+## History
+
+| Version | Revision date | Revision    | Author     |
+|---------|---------------|-------------|------------|
+| 1.0     | 2024-12-06    | First draft | V.A. Traag |
+
+</div>
+
+Of the various areas of impact (academic, societal and economic) of Open Science, academic impact is probably the most well-established and researched impact area. In particular, indicators of [citation impact](citation_impact.qmd) and [collaborations](collaboration_intensity.qmd) have a long history and a long development and are well-established. At the same time, there are also more recently developed indicators that are becoming relevant in this area, such as the [reuse of data](reuse_of_data_in_research.qmd) and [code](reuse_of_code_in_research.qmd) in research, and are still actively being developed. The rise of reference managers enabled tracking [readership](academic_readership.qmd) instead of only citations, making it possible to distinguish between papers that are read widely and papers that are cited widely. At the same time, aspects of academic impact such as “quality”, [“novelty” or “interdisciplinarity”](interdisciplinarity.qmd) remain complicated to develop robust indicators for based on existing data sources, thus requiring more in-depth manual assessments.
+
+In addition, academic impact is most closely associated with Open Science practices, meaning that we can track potential effects of Open Science more easily than in societal and academic impact. This is also visible in the available literature on specific impacts. For instance, the PathOS’ scoping review of academic impact [@klebel_academic_2024] lists 489 studies compared to 196 reviewed studies in societal impact [@cole_societal_2024], and even less for economic impact. There is also a streetlight effect, with studies of the impact of Open Access on Citation Advantage constituting a large part of the literature on academic impact.
+
+Still, although establishing a connection between Open Science and academic impact is more straightforward, inferring the causal effect remains a common challenge across impact areas.

references.bib

@@ -372,6 +372,23 @@ @article{colavizza2020
 }
 
 
+@article{cole_societal_2024,
+  title      = {The societal impact of {Open} {Science}: a scoping review},
+  volume     = {11},
+  shorttitle = {The societal impact of {Open} {Science}},
+  doi        = {10.1098/rsos.240286},
+  abstract   = {Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society's problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.},
+  number     = {6},
+  urldate    = {2024-06-27},
+  journal    = {Royal Society Open Science},
+  author     = {Cole, Nicki Lisa and Kormann, Eva and Klebel, Thomas and Apartis, Simon and Ross-Hellauer, Tony},
+  month      = jun,
+  year       = {2024},
+  note       = {Publisher: Royal Society},
+  pages      = {240286}
+}
+
+
 @book{cost-ben2018,
   title     = {Cost-benefit analysis for FAIR research data: cost of not having FAIR research data},
   year      = {2018},
@@ -381,7 +398,6 @@ @book{cost-ben2018
   langid    = {eng}
 }
 
-
 @book{cunningham_causal_2021,
   title     = {Causal {Inference}},
   isbn      = {978-0-300-25168-5},
@@ -1041,14 +1057,14 @@ @inproceedings{jackson2016
   langid    = {en}
 }
 
+
 @inproceedings{jacob2019,
   title  = {FAIR principles, an new opportunity to improve the data lifecycle},
   author = {Jacob, Daniel},
   year   = {2019},
   date   = {2019}
 }
 
-
 @techreport{jahn2023,
   title  = {Study on the readiness of research data and literature repositories to facilitate compliance with the Open Science Horizon Europe MGA requirements},
   author = {Jahn, Najko and Laakso, Mikael and Lazzeri, Emma and McQuilton, Peter},
@@ -1091,6 +1107,7 @@ @book{jung2023
   url    = {https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/scrutiny/index.html}
 }
 
+
 @article{keller2014,
   title   = {Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions},
   author  = {Keller, Paul and Margoni, Thomas and Rybicka, Katarzyna and Tarkowski, Alek},
@@ -1106,7 +1123,6 @@ @article{keller2014
   langid  = {en}
 }
 
-
 @article{khan2022,
   title   = {Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: a cross-sectional study},
   author  = {Khan, Hassan and Almoli, Elham and Franco, Marina Christ and Moher, David},
@@ -1121,6 +1137,18 @@ @article{khan2022
   langid  = {en}
 }
 
+@misc{klebel_academic_2024,
+  title      = {The academic impact of {Open} {Science}: a scoping review},
+  shorttitle = {The academic impact of {Open} {Science}},
+  doi        = {10.31235/osf.io/ptjub},
+  language   = {en-us},
+  urldate    = {2024-08-30},
+  publisher  = {OSF},
+  author     = {Klebel, Thomas and Traag, Vincent and Grypari, Ioanna and Stoy, Lennart and Ross-Hellauer, Tony},
+  month      = jul,
+  year       = {2024}
+}
+
 @software{klebel_code,
   title     = {Code for "Introduction to causality in science studies"},
   publisher = {Zenodo},
@@ -1981,6 +2009,7 @@ @article{robinson-garcia2017
   url     = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157717300834}
 }
 
+
 @article{robinson-garcia2020,
   title   = {Open Access uptake by universities worldwide},
   author  = {Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas and Costas, Rodrigo and van Leeuwen, Thed N.},
@@ -2009,7 +2038,6 @@ @article{roche2020
   langid  = {English}
 }
 
-
 @article{rohrer2018,
   title   = {Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data},
   author  = {Rohrer, Julia M.},
@@ -2438,6 +2466,7 @@ @article{woods2022
   url     = {https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/6-355/v2}
 }
 
+
 @article{wuchty2007,
   title   = {The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge},
   author  = {Wuchty, Stefan and Jones, Benjamin F. and Uzzi, Brian},