Shared Knowledge, Shared Impact: A New Era for Research Evaluation

As the research world becomes increasingly interconnected, the way we measure scientific success is undergoing a quiet transformation. The Open Access Week 2025 theme: “Who Owns Our Knowledge?”, urges us to think critically about not just data ownership, but also the ownership of impact. Are we still defining success through journal metrics alone, or are we beginning to value how research informs practice, policy, and public good? In this collaborative article, thought leaders from across the scholarly ecosystem reflect on what it means to move from journal impact to community impact, and how open, equitable research practices can help redefine the very notion of success in science. We share the insightful perspectives of Iva Grabaric Andonovsky, Christopher Leonard, Rachel Martin and Roohi Ghosh.

What does community impact mean and how should we measure it?

Iva Grabaric Andonovky – Both authors and journal editors should give more consideration to how they provide information to the broader community. Authors could discuss the potential community impact of their findings when offering a future perspective. Editors might consider including a lay summary, an industry summary (where applicable), or a summary for policymakers alongside the published manuscript. Researchers must find a way to communicate not only with their peers but also with the wider community.

Christopher Leonard – Community impact means research that creates real-world change—influencing policy, improving health outcomes, or addressing local needs—rather than just generating academic citations. We should measure it through qualitative evidence like policy changes and stakeholder testimonials, not just journal impact factors. The key is collecting multiple forms of evidence throughout the research process, recognizing that meaningful change often takes years to unfold and requires looking beyond traditional bibliometrics.

Often a large change in a marginalized community can have greater effects than a marginal change in a large community, but that is difficult to recognize.

Rachel Martin – It is important consider that that very concept of “impact” and thus what we as a community deem to be a “success” is subjective. What benefits one group may not be seen the same way by another. For example, a new technology might bring jobs and infrastructure to some parts of a community, while causing displacement or cultural loss for others. We should recognize that our values, priorities and lived experience shape how we perceive outcomes. As a result, community impact, from my perspective, requires a multi-faceted approach recognizing that success looks different and should be measured differently across communities.

Research evaluation is already moving beyond traditional metrics like journal impact factors to embrace a broader, more holistic understanding of impact. We see newer metrics looking at citations of research in documents such as policy and patents and even mentions on social media to measure broader “impacts”.

However, we must remember that communicating impact requires more than just analyzing data proxies. It’s equally important to consider how researchers convey the story of their impact—to secure funding, accelerate scaling, and drive real-world implementation. Impact resonates beyond academic audiences, and frameworks like the SDGs provide a common, accessible language that helps stakeholders immediately understand how research aligns with societal priorities.

Roohi Ghosh – I believe that community impact in research means that the research needs to benefit not just academia, but society at large. Has the loop of research come a full circle: from addressing the challenges that the community faces to lab to policy and back to the community. This, in one line, is community impact according to me.

It’s not enough to just change the way impact is looked at. True change will happen only if career advancement, promotions and more are all connected to community impact and not journal impact factors. What we really need to do is ask ourselves some tough questions:

• Has my research informed public policy, local practice, or community awareness?
• Has my research been translated, visualized, and shared in a way that it is accessible beyond paywalls?
• Has my research inspired collaboration or trust between other researchers and the communities that they study?

I feel that true community impact should be measured in uptake, access, and influence, that is, can people use my research in real life, can they access it easily without barriers and can it empower people to apply it, or adapt it to make decisions that affect their lives.

What changes are needed to value community impact in academia?

Iva Grabaric Andonovky – The community impact of the research cannot be measured by journal impact, but rather by its value for the community, within the context of the field. For example, in food science, the impact on the community could be demonstrated by the development of a novel functional product that can be produced on a large scale and at minimum costs. Such an innovation could provide access to nutritious food that has a positive impact on human health. This type of impact aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as Zero hunger (SDG2), Good health and well-being (SDG3), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG9), and Responsible consumption and production (SDG12), all of which offer tangible ways to measure broader societal benefits.

Chris Leonard – The tenure system must recognize community-engaged scholarship as equivalent to traditional research, not marginal “service work.” We need promotion committees trained to evaluate impact beyond citations and funding structures that reward genuine community partnerships from the start. The deeper challenge is that universities are judged by prestige flowing from traditional metrics. Until university rankings and research assessment exercises incorporate community engagement meaningfully, individual researchers prioritizing community impact often sacrifice career advancement.

We also need new publication venues altogether—community-accessible formats, multilingual dissemination, open-access repositories specifically for practice-oriented research. Academic publishing’s paywall problem is fundamentally at odds with community impact.

Roohi Ghosh – Today, researchers still focus mainly on publishing in top journals. Yes, we celebrate what’s new, but do we always celebrate what’s useful even if it isn’t published in a top journal? For community impact to be measured, the first step is to acknowledge the efforts of researchers who share their findings openly, explain their work to the public, and/or co-create solutions with local communities. Of course, for this to happen, funders and universities need to start rewarding things like open data, research summaries in local languages, or partnerships with schools, hospitals, or NGOs. These are real signs that research is reaching people and making an actual difference.

Rachel Martin – To value community impact alongside traditional metrics, academia and publishing need a cultural shift toward the principles of a 4th Generation University—an institution that has evolved beyond its traditional focus on education (1st generation), research (2nd generation), and innovation or entrepreneurship (3rd generation). A 4th Generation University is mission-led and societally engaged: it seeks not only to generate and disseminate knowledge but to apply it collaboratively to address real-world challenges such as sustainability, equity, and resilience.

This evolution requires structural changes that recognize community partnerships, co-created research, and measurable social outcomes as core indicators of success. Culturally, it means valuing reciprocity, local knowledge, and collective problem-solving as much as academic prestige.

What are your thoughts on “who owns our data and our impact?”

Iva Grabaric Andonovsky – I would say that the funders own our data. If the research is a result of the publicly funded project, then the resulting data should be considered a public good – owned by the community. Therefore, Open Access is a way of providing feedback to the community about how public funds have been used. Community engagement and citizen science initiatives are increasingly encouraged within the European Union, as research should ultimately aim to improve the quality of life. To do this efficiently, we must listen to the community feedback, to understand which areas need the most attention and improvement.

Christopher Leonard – Research often extracts data from communities while researchers claim ownership of both the data and resulting “impact” for their careers. This creates a fundamental power imbalance. Communities should have sovereignty over data about themselves—controlling how it’s collected, used, and shared, following models like Indigenous OCAP principles. When community members co-design research and interpret findings, they should be recognized as co-creators of impact, not just subjects. True equity requires shared decision-making power, resources, and credit—not just acknowledging communities in papers. However, academia’s incentive structure – focusing on individual recognition -fundamentally conflicts with genuine co-ownership.

Rachel Martin – Technologically, open science, digital collaboration, and participatory platforms can help bridge academia and society. Ultimately, excellence must be redefined—not just by what universities publish, but by the positive difference they make in people’s lives.

Roohi Ghosh – Technology can play a part in connecting research to real-world results, for example, can we start tracking if a paper was instrumental in influencing policy, used in a local project, or changed how something was done in practice? In the end, measuring community impact is not about letting a few decide what counts as success, but instead the community needs to decide what they could use, access, and trust.