Research Visibility versus Research Impact

Résumé fourni par la source

Research visibility and research impact are increasingly prominent concepts within contemporary scholarly communication and research evaluation, yet they continue to be treated as interchangeable in much institutional and policy discourse. This conceptual conflation risks the misinterpretation of bibliometric, altmetric, and digital engagement indicators, and it can distort incentives for researchers, universities, publishers and funding agencies. Building on the ResearchTrics Research Visibility Framework proposed in Bulletin No. 001 (Oladunmoye, 2026a), this Bulletin distinguishes research visibility from research impact and examines the conceptual and empirical relationship between them. Research visibility is defined as the degree to which a research output, researcher, research group or institution can be discovered, accessed, recognised, connected, engaged with and represented within relevant scholarly and knowledge ecosystems. Research impact, by contrast, concerns the effects or changes generated through the use, application, influence or translation of research. Visibility is therefore an enabling condition for scholarly engagement and influence, whereas impact concerns demonstrable consequences associated with research. The Bulletin proposes an expanded five-stage conceptual pathway comprising production, visibility, engagement, influence and impact, while emphasising that the pathway is neither deterministic nor strictly linear. A highly visible study may generate little substantive impact, while research with considerable local or practical influence may remain comparatively invisible within conventional bibliometric systems. Drawing on evidence from systematic reviews of the open access citation advantage, the responsible metrics literature, and the societal impact assessment literature, the Bulletin argues that citations should be interpreted as one form of scholarly visibility and influence evidence rather than as a universal measure of research impact. The distinction carries implications for universities, researchers, publishers, funding agencies and research information systems. The Bulletin concludes that responsible research evaluation requires the complementary assessment of productivity, quality, visibility and impact, supported by qualitative expert judgement, rather than the substitution of one construct for another.