Bibliometrics, the “Clinical Diagnostics” of Research Impact; Comment on ““We’re Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research”: A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Laboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation at the Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science, National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy

2 Department of Engineering and Management, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy


Following the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS) strategic revision as a “researchbased” institution, A. Brown et al have investigated the impact of THHS research, and its key drivers, based on 15 stakeholder interviews and two quantitative indicators. This commentary argues that the quantitative analyses and findings would have benefitted from applying evaluative bibliometrics, hopefully, conducted by experienced bibliometricians. We present the potential of bibliometrics for assessing the scholarly impact of research, as well as a few examples of its application to the case of THHS, for informing research policies and strategies.


  1. Brown A, Edelman A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. “We’re not providing the best care if we are not on the cutting edge of research”: a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian hospital and health service. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2022; doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6529
  2. Ash, MG. Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universitäten [The Humboldtian myth: Past and future of the German universities]. Vienna, Böhlau. 1999; ISBN 978-3-205-98915-8
  3. Abramo, G. Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. Journal of Informetrics. 2018; 12(3): 590-597. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.05.001
  4. Sherwin CW, Isenson RS. Project hindsight. Science. 1967; 156(3782), 1571-1577. doi:10.1126/science.156.3782.1571
  5. Gibbons M, Johnston R. The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy. 1974; 3(3), 220-242. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(74)90008-0
  6. Trajtenberg M. Economic analysis of product innovation: the case of CT scanners. Harvard economic studies; 1990; 160. Harvard University Press.
  7. Langrish J. Innovation in pharmaceuticals. Research Policy. 1971; 1(1), 88-98. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(71)90008-4
  8. IIT Research Institute. “Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (TRACES)”. 1968.
  9. OECD/Eurostat, Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg. 2018; doi: 10.1787/9789264304604-en
  10. Woolston, C. (2023). How to measure the societal impact of science. Nature, 614, 375-377.
  11. Cameron WB. Informal Sociology, a casual introduction to sociological thinking. Random House, New York. 1963; page 13
  12. Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation. 1969; 25(4): 348-349
  13. Narin F. Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill: Computer Horizons. 1976
  14. Merton RK. Priorities in scientific discovery. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1973; 286–324.
  15. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Reale E. Peer review vs bibliometrics: which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications? Scientometrics. 2019; 121(1): 537-554. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03184-y
  16. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA. How reliable are unsupervised author disambiguation algorithms in assessment of research organization performance? Quantitative Science Studies. 2023; doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00236.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 19 March 2023
  • Receive Date: 26 September 2022
  • Revise Date: 20 February 2023
  • Accept Date: 18 March 2023
  • First Publish Date: 19 March 2023