{"id":38886,"date":"2025-10-23T05:20:58","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T23:50:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?p=38886"},"modified":"2025-10-24T12:17:09","modified_gmt":"2025-10-24T06:47:09","slug":"open-access-week-moving-from-journal-impact-to-community-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/open-access-week-moving-from-journal-impact-to-community-impact","title":{"rendered":"Shared Knowledge, Shared Impact: A New Era for Research Evaluation"},"content":{"rendered":"

As the research world becomes increasingly interconnected, the way we measure scientific success is undergoing a quiet transformation. The Open Access Week 2025 theme: \u201cWho Owns Our Knowledge?\u201d, 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: <\/em><\/p>\n

Duncan Nicholas<\/a> <\/em>(Development Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online \/ Past-President of EASE)<\/p>\n

Iva Grabari\u0107 Andonovski<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(Editor of Food Technology and Biotechnology journal, EASE Vice President, EASE Croatian Chapter chair)<\/p>\n

Christopher Leonard<\/a> <\/em>(Director of Product Solutions, Cactus Communications)<\/p>\n

Rachel Martin<\/a> <\/em>(Global Director Sustainability at Elsevier)<\/p>\n

Roohi Ghosh <\/a><\/em>(Ambassador – Researcher Outreach, Engagement, and Success, <\/span>Cactus Communications; Vice Chair EASE India Chapter)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What does community impact mean and how should we measure it?<\/h3>\n

Duncan Nicholas<\/strong> – There are several different communities around individual researchers, journals, societies, or research fields that one could differentiate between. Dividing into themes helps focus on understanding what \u2018Impact\u2019 may look like for each of the groups and help you manage the ways you work towards engaging them, understanding their needs, and the messages and techniques you use to promote your work to them. I like to consider perspectives such as –\u00a0 journals as community hubs, peer review as a community engagement and education activity, broader society activity and outreach and science communication.<\/p>\n

For authors looking at journals and formal publication \u2013 who is accepting your work (you can include citations in here).<\/p>\n

For journals \u2013 citations work here as well, but beyond that, “impact” could be receiving papers from authors you would like (to be) publishing in your desired specialist topics and getting the most interesting papers and recruiting new reviewers; working at improving qualities of reviews; measuring author or reader opinions through feedback; and libraries, faculty, educationalists stocking\/indexing\/listing your work.<\/p>\n

For both individual authors and journals, several other measures of impact can be getting research various types of attention and application, such as:<\/p>\n

General public \u2013 is anyone engaging with your work? How are you reaching them with it?
\nJournalists, bloggers, vloggers, podcasts etc \u2013 how much your work appears in the media, and in what ways? Is it helping reach more of the public? Or other targets?
\nGovernment agencies \u2013 are you effecting policy change?
\nSchools and teachers \u2013 is your work being incorporated into educational settings?
\nFunders \u2013 are you winning grants or gaining sponsorship and financial support?
\nPublic speaking \u2013 giving talks at conferences, or public events<\/p>\n

These can all further the impact of the work by having their own levels of influence and investment into a project, and it is those further actions, or ripples, that really help define these communities and demonstrate how they are of value to you.<\/p>\n

Iva Grabari\u0107 Andonovski <\/strong>– 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.<\/p>\n

Christopher Leonard<\/strong> – Community impact means research that creates real-world change\u2014influencing policy, improving health outcomes, or addressing local needs\u2014rather 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Rachel Martin<\/strong> – It is important to consider that the very concept of \u201cimpact\u201d and thus what we as a community deem to be a \u201csuccess\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cimpacts\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, we must remember that communicating impact requires more than just analyzing data proxies. It\u2019s equally important to consider how researchers convey the story of their impact\u2014to 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.<\/p>\n

Roohi Ghosh<\/strong> – 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.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n