Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Transfer represents awareness and/or use of research outputs created or disseminated as a result of basic or clinical research. Subsequent use of the research output can be by the same study investigators that created or disseminated the research output or by another group. There are a number of ways to quantify and document knowledge transfer.
Indicators of knowledge transfer that can be quantified and documented include:
- Biological Materials
- Cited References
- Classical Articles
- Consensus Development Conferences
- Curriculum Guidelines
- License Agreements
- Mass Media
- Material Transfer Agreements (MTA)
- Medical Devices
- Meta-Analyses
- Pharmaceutical Preparations
- Publication Use Statistics
- Ranking Factors
- Requests for Reprints
- Research Studies/Ancillary
- Research Studies/New
- Reviews
- Subject Headings/Thesauri
- Systematic Reviews
- Website of Research Study
For each indicator there may be several examples of evidence of knowledge transfer.
Each Indicator page as noted above includes:
- Evidence of transfer
- Definition of the indicator
- Discussion of the indicator, including examples when applicable
- Assessment/tracking of the indicator
- Resources and guidance for assessment of the indicator
One of the most common ways of assessing knowledge transfer is tracking the impact of a publication by performing citation analysis to determine patterns of publication – who has used a particular publication in subsequent research, why and how?
While citation analysis can provide useful feedback as to knowledge transfer it is not without some flaws nor does it adequately demonstrate the full impact that may have resulted from research findings. For instance, some limits include:
- results from a particular resource reflect only those publications that are indexed by the resource – potentially a small pool of journal literature
- citation analysis of monographs or book chapters or conference proceedings is very rudimentary
- author self-citations often inflate the citation count
- citation analysis does not typically reveal evidence of research impact such as implementation of clinical guidelines or a new diagnostic criteria
- citation analysis does not measure clinical outcomes
- citation analysis does not reveal new or ancillary research projects undertaken as a result of a research study
- results from resources may be inconsistent due to different search algorithms, search tools and thesauri
- results may include different versions of the same publication
- results may be duplicated among multiple resources
- citation rates do not indicate quality of research or greater research impact
Despite these limits, citation analysis can provide a useful means of assessment of research impact from a knowledge transfer perspective.
There are a number of indicators of knowledge transfer that do not require citation analysis in order to quantify research impact. Two examples include ancillary and new research studies that are generated as a result of research outputs. Evidence of knowledge transfer is demonstrated if the findings of a research study allowed for expansion of research in related areas (ancillary studies) and if the findings allowed for research in previously unexplored areas (new studies).
Another indicator of knowledge transfer is ranking of a publication based on research impact or significance. Ranking of publications can be a useful tool as ranking is assigned by a peer group of researchers who determine the impact of the publication. Some rankings include classifications that indicate what type of impact a publication has had, such as changes in clinical practice or if the research has produced a novel drug target.
Back to Top
Last updated: June 1, 2009