* A common reason for measuring the impact of research is to demonstrate accountability, but results of measuring can also be used to guide improvements in research and programming. * Health research impacts generally include: knowledge production; research capacity-building; informed decision-making; health and health sector benefits; and economic benefits. * Among some of the widely used methods for measuring the benefits from research are bibliometric analysis, economic rate of return, peer review, case studies, logic modelling, and benchmarking. Taking a multi-indicator, multi-method approach is advised.

(Note: See the .pdf attached to this media release for the various models suggested for analyzing impact) It is often stated that the most difficult task in any research project is not the achievement of results, but the accurate analysis of the benefits that those outcomes reap. The Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme has been a leading light in the discovery and industry-focused application of new technologies and techniques. Now, with the release of a landmark guidebook by the CRC Association, scientists are armed with tools to greatly improve their ability to accurately assess the benefit to the economy of their outputs.

Formerly, the impact of authors and their scientific production was measured by the average citation frequencies of journals publishing their research: the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the United States and published annually in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR)-the most frequently used quantitative indicator to measure the quality/value/impact of research works published in the core international journals. It has been suggested that, by calculating the number of webpages pointing to a given site, analogously, a Web Impact Factor can be calculated as a way of comparing the attractiveness of sites or domains on the World Wide Web.

...The RQF differs from existing international research assessment methods by considering res- earch impact in addition to the more conven- tional quality measures normally used in the academic community. This inclusion has created some controversy. Detractors argue that the inclusion of impact devalues the assessment process by moving beyond the scholarly domain, and that there may be undue emphasis on research that can demonstrably show shorter- term economic or other gains. An alternative view is that the absence of an assessment of impact seriously unbalances the evaluation of research and its importance to national and global priorities....