RESEARCH ARTICLE

Overton: A bibliometric database of
policy document citations

Martin Szomszor1

and Euan Adie2

1Electric Data Solutions LTD, London, UK
2Overton, London, UK

Keywords: bibliometrics, citation metrics, impact assessment, Overton, policy influence, research
evaluation

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an analysis of the Overton policy document database, describing the
makeup of materials indexed and the nature in which they cite academic literature. We report
on various aspects of the data, including growth, geographic spread, language representation,
the range of policy source types included, and the availability of citation links in documents.
Longitudinal analysis over established journal category schemes is used to reveal the scale and
disciplinary focus of citations and determine the feasibility of developing field-normalized
citation indicators. To corroborate the data indexed, we also examine how well self-reported
funding outcomes collected by UK funders correspond to data indexed in the Overton
database. Finalmente, to test the data in an experimental setting, we assess whether peer-review
assessment of impact as measured by the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014
correlates with derived policy citation metrics. Our findings show that for some research
topics, such as health, economics, social care, and the environment, Overton contains a core
set of policy documents with sufficient citation linkage to academic literature to support
various citation analyses that may be informative in research evaluation, impact assessment,
and policy review.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The premise that academic research leads to wider social, cultural, economic, and environ-
mental benefits has underpinned our investment in publicly funded research since the 1950s
(Bush, 1945). It was broadly accepted that research leads to positive outcomes (Burke,
Bergman, & Asimov, 1985), but this belief was further scrutinized as technical analyses were
developed to unpick the exact nature and scale of these impacts (Evenson, Waggoner, &
Ruttan, 1979). The types of evaluation became more varied and complex as the investigators
focused on specific domains (Hanney, Packwood, & Buxton, 2000; van der Meulen & Rip,
2000), taking into account the myriad ways in which knowledge is generated, exchanged,
assimilated, and utilized outside of academia. The general assumption holds that there is a
return on investment in research through direct and indirect mechanisms (Salter & Martin,
2001) and the most recent literature reviews (Bornmann, 2013; Greenhalgh, Raftery et al.,
2016; Penfield, Baker et al., 2014) provide detailed perspectives on how to identify and dif-
ferentiate between outputs and outcomes across a range of settings.

Research evaluation also developed to support a greater need for accountability (Thomas,
Nedeva et al., 2020): initially, by peer review (Gibbons & Georghiou, 1987), then strategic

a n o p e n a c c e s s

j o u r n a l

Citation: Szomszor, M., & Adie, E.
(2022). Overton: A bibliometric
database of policy document citations.
Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3),
624–650. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a
_00204

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00204

Peer Review:
https://publons.com/publon/10.1162
/qss_a_00204

Received: 28 Gennaio 2022
Accepted: 17 Giugno 2022

Corresponding Author:
Martin Szomszor
martin@electricdata.solutions

Handling Editor:
Ludo Waltman

Copyright: © 2022 Martin Szomszor and
Euan Adie. Published under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 Internazionale
(CC BY 4.0) licenza.

The MIT Press

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

reorientation (Georghiou, 1995), and recently using more data-driven approaches that incor-
porate bibliometric components (Adams, Gurney, & Marshall, 2007; Hicks, 2010; Hicks &
Melkers, 2013; Martin, 1996). Despite shortcomings in their suitability to judge research qual-
ità (Moed, Burger et al., 1985; Pendlebury, 2009), citation indicators became more popular
(May, 1997) due to their growing availability, relatively low cost compared with conventional
peer review, and ready application to national, regional, and institutional portfolios (BEIS,
2017). Current evaluation programs that consider citation data include: Australia (ARC,
2018), EU (Reinhardt & Milzow, 2012), Finland (Lahtinen, Koskinen-Ollonqvist et al.,
2005), Italy (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2015), New Zealand (Buckle & Creedy, 2019), Norway
(Sivertsen, 2018), Spain (Jiménez-Contreras, Anegón et al., 2003), United Kingdom
(REF2020, 2020) and United States (NIH, 2008).

Tuttavia, growing use of bibliometric indicators also altered researcher behaviors via cor-
rupted incentives, leading to a variety of negative outcomes (Abramo, D’Angelo, & Grilli,
2021; Butler, 2003; Lopez Pineiro & Hicks, 2015; Yücel & Demir, 2018) and motivating var-
ious groups to call for more nuanced and equitable research assessment, such as in the San
Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (Cagan, 2013), Metrics Tide report
(Wilsdon, Allen et al., 2015), and Leiden Manifesto (Hicks, Wouters et al., 2015). This has
resulted in publishers, research organizations, and funders signing up to the aforementioned
initiatives and developing their own policies to ensure metrics are deployed and used respon-
sibly. A key aspect has been a push towards broad recognition of research contributions
(Morton, 2015) and a more nuanced use of bibliometric indicators (Adams, Marie et al., 2019).

Throughout this growth and development in the use of metrics, it has become clear that
standard citation indicators reflect only the strength of influence within academia and are
unable to measure impact beyond this realm (Moed, 2005; Ravenscroft, Liakata et al.,
2017). This has led to the exploration of adjacent data sources to provide signals of the wider
impact of research, which have been collectively named altmetrics (Priem, Taraborelli et al.,
2010). This term refers to a range of potential data sources that could potentially reveal edu-
cational impact (Kousha & Thelwall, 2008; Mas-Bleda & Thelwall, 2018), knowledge transfer
(Kousha & Thelwall, 2017), commercial use (Orduna-Malea, Thelwall, & Kousha, 2017), pub-
lic engagement (Shema, Bar-Ilan, & Thelwall, 2015), policy influence (Tattersall & Carroll,
2018), and more. With access to a broader range of indicators, it may be possible to address
some contemporary research evaluation issues by increasing the scope of how research is
measured and allow the full range of research outcomes to be attributed to researchers.

In the area of policy influence, the research underpinning clinical guidelines, economic
policy, environmental protocols, eccetera. is a significant topic of interest. Analysis of the
REF2014 Impact Case Study data (Grant, 2015) showed that 20% of case studies were asso-
ciated with the topic Informing government policy, E 17% were associated with Parliamen-
tary scrutiny, most frequently in Panel C (social sciences). In many cases, evidence cited in
case studies included citations to the research from national and international policy organi-
zations. In Unit of Assessment 1 (clinical medicine), 41% of case studies were allocated to the
topic Clinical guidance, indicating some use of the academic research in policy setting.

Since 2019, a large database of policy documents and their citations to academic literature
has been developed by Overton (see overton.io). As of December 2021, it indexes publica-
tions from more than 30,000 national and international sources including governments, think
tanks, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and charities. The focus of this paper is to eval-
uate Overton as a potential bibliometric data source using a series of analyses that investigate
the makeup of documents indexed (per esempio., by geography, lingua, and year of publication), IL

Quantitative Science Studies

625

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

network of citations (per esempio., volume, distribution, time-lag), and how well data correlate with
other impact logging processes (per esempio., as reported to funders). An example analysis is also pro-
vided to show how Overton data can be used to test whether peer-review scores correlate with
derived citation metrics. In doing so, it is our hope to understand more about the potential uses
of policy citation data by highlighting which disciplines are most frequently cited and if cita-
tion volumes are sufficient to support the development of citation indicators.

The paper is structured as follows: Sezione 2 summarizes related work. Sezione 3 presents
the methodology for each experiment and outlines the data sets used. Sezione 4 presents the
results of each analysis before discussion in Section 5.

2. RELATED WORK

The traditional bibliometric databases, namely the Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus
(Elsevier), Dimensions (Digital Science), Microsoft Academic (Microsoft), and Google Scholar
(Google), have been extensively evaluated (Aksnes & Sivertsen, 2019; Chadegani, Salehi et al.,
2013; Falagas, Pitsouni et al., 2008; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016; Visser, van Eck, & Waltman,
2021), particularly in terms of cited references (Martín-Martín, Thelwall et al., 2021), subject
coverage (Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea et al., 2018), comparability of citation metrics
(Thelwall, 2018), journal coverage (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; Singh, Singh et al., 2021),
classification systems (Wang & Waltman, 2016), accuracy of reference linking (Alcaraz &
Morais, 2012; Olensky, Schmidt, & van Eck, 2016), duplication (Valderrama-Zurián,
Aguilar-Moya et al., 2015), suitability for application with national and institutional aggrega-
zioni (Guerrero-Bote, Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al., 2021), language coverage (Vera-Baceta,
Thelwall, & Kousha, 2019), regional bias (Rafols, Ciarli, & Chavarro, 2020; Tennant, 2020),
and predatory publishing (Björk, Kanto-Karvonen, & Harviainen, 2020; Demir, 2020). IL
notion of best data source is partly subjective (cioè., depending on personal preference), Ma
also depends on the type of use (per esempio., search and discovery versus bibliometric analysis), dis-
cipline, regional focus, and time period in question, and can be influenced by the availability
of metadata and links to adjacent data sets (per esempio., patents, grants, clinical trials, eccetera.), depending
on task.

Much like the preference for bibliographic data source, the choice of citation impact indi-
cator (Waltman, 2016) is highly debatable. It is generally accepted that citations should be
normalized by year of publication, discipline, and document type, although whether the cal-
culation should be based on the average of ratios (Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010; Waltman, van
Eck et al., 2011) or ratio of averages (Moed, 2010; Vinkler, 2012) is contentious (Larivière &
Gingras, 2011), as is the selection of counting methodology (Potter, Szomszor, & Adams,
2020; Waltman & van Eck, 2015). Suitable sample size is key to providing robust outcomes
(Rogers, Szomszor, & Adams, 2020), and any choices made with respect to category scheme
used and indicator choice should influence interpretation of results (Szomszor, Adams et al.,
2021).

The potential for use of altmetric indicators was initially focused on the prediction of tra-
ditional citations (Thelwall, Haustein et al., 2013) and possible correlation with existing indi-
cators (Costas, Zahedi, & Wouters, 2015; Zahedi, Costas, & Wouters, 2014). It was suggested
that “little knowledge is gained from these studies” (Bornmann, 2014) and that the biggest
potential for altmetrics was toward measurements of broader societal impact (Bornmann,
2015). At this point, the coverage of altmetrics was limited to social media attention (per esempio., Twit-
ter and Facebook mentions), usage metrics (per esempio., website downloads, Mendeley readers), E
online news citations (both traditional and blogs). Comparisons with peer-review assessment

Quantitative Science Studies

626

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

(Bornmann & Haunschild, 2018UN) revealed that Mendeley readership was the most strongly
associated of these with high-quality research, but still much less than conventional citation
indicators. More recent analysis (Bornmann, Haunschild, & Adams, 2019) have incorporated
other altmetric indicators, showing Wikipedia and policy document citations to have the high-
est correlation with REF Impact Case study scores out of the available indicators. Bornmann,
Haunschild, and Marx (2016) conclude “Policy documents are one of the few altmetrics
sources which can be used for the target-oriented impact measurement.” To date, Overton
data has been utilized in a small number of studies, including an investigation of how
cross-disciplinary research can increase the policy relevance of research outcomes (Pinheiro,
Vignola-Gagné, & Campbell, 2021), and the interactions between science and policy making
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gao, Yin et al., 2020; Yin, Gao et al., 2021). Most recently,
Bornmann, Haunschild et al. (2022) explore how climate change research is cited in climate
change policy, uncovering the complexities of how research is translated into policy setting.

Prior work investigating the translation of research through citations in clinical guidelines
(Grant, 2000; Kryl, Allen et al., 2012; Newson, Rychetnik et al., 2018) have utilized specific
data sources (often requiring significant manual curation) to show their value in evaluating
research outcomes. Databases of clinical practice guidelines have emerged (Eriksson, Billhult
et al., 2020) to support this specific line of inquiry, and recent work (Guthrie, Cochrane et al.,
2019; Pallari, Eriksson et al., 2021; Pallari & Lewison, 2020) utilizes this information to
uncover national trends and highlight relative differences in the evidence base used.

Patent data citations are another important data source that have been utilized in studies
relating to the wider impact of scientific research (van Raan, 2017), usually for tracking tech-
nology transfer (Alcácer & Gittelman, 2006; Meyer, 2000; Roach & Cohen, 2013) or industrial
R&D links (Tijssen, Yegros-Yegros, & Winnink, 2016), and often in the context of national
assessment (Carpenter, Cooper, & Narin, 1980; Chowdhury, Koya, & Philipson, 2016; Narin
& Hamilton, 1996) and convergence research (Karvonen & Kässi, 2013). Notably, recente
research casts doubt on the suitability of patent data citations for these purposes (Abrams,
Akcigit, & Grennan, 2018; Kuhn, Younge, & Marco, 2020) due to changes in citation behav-
iour and growth in the use of the patent system as a strategic instrument.

3. METHODOLOGY

The Overton database is the primary source of data for this study. It is created by web-crawling
publicly accessible documents published by a curated list of over 30,000 organizations,
including governments, intergovernmental organizations, think tanks, and charities. Each doc-
ument is processed to extract bibliographic information (titolo, authors, publication date, eccetera.)
along with a list of cited references, including those to academic literature as well as other
policy documents. Technical details regarding the reference matching process can be found
on the Overton website (Overton, 2022). A policy document itself may be composed of mul-
tiple items, referred to herein as PDFs because they are the majority format type, such as clin-
ical guidelines (which contain separate documents with recommendations and evidence
bases) or when language translations exist. The types of documents vary in nature and include
reports, white papers, clinical guidelines, parliamentary transcripts, legal documents, E
more, intended for a variety of audiences, including journalists, policy makers, government
officials, and citizens. Generally speaking, Overton seeks to index materials written by a pol-
icy maker or primarily for a policy maker.

Overton classifies publication sources using a broad taxonomy that is further subdivided by
type. Top-level source types are: government, intergovernmental organizations (igo), think

Quantitative Science Studies

627

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

tank, and other. Subtypes include bank, court, healthcare agency, research center, and legis-
lative. Each publication source is assigned a geographic location, including country and
region (per esempio., state or devolved territory). Some sources are classified as IGO (cioè., global reach),
or EU (European Union).

For this study, 4,504,896 policy documents (made up of 4,854,919 individual PDFs) citing
3,579,710 unique articles (DOIs) were used. To integrate this data with other sources, Tutto
records were converted into Resource Description Framework (RDF) (Bizer, Vidal, & Weiss,
2018), a semantic web metadata model, and loaded into a the graph database GraphDB™.
The following additional data sources were used:

–

–

–

Crossref: Metadata for all DOIs were extracted from Crossref records providing titles,
source names (cioè., journal), collection identifiers (ISSNs and ISBNs), e pubblicazione
dates.
Scopus journal categories: As determined by linking ISSNs to Crossref records, each
journal is associated with up to 13 All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) categorie
for journals, organized in a hierarchy under areas and disciplines. (n = 19,555). Fonte:
scopus.com.
REF2014 Case Studies: All publicly available case studies submitted to REF2014 and
the associated DOIs mentioned in the references section. A total of 6,637 Case Studies
were included, linking to 24,945 unique DOIs. Fonte: impact.ref.ac.uk.
REF2014 Results: The final distribution of scores awarded in REF2014. For each Institu-
tion and UoA, scores for Outputs and Case Studies were loaded, expressed as the per-
centage of outputs in categories 4* (world-leading), 3* (internationally excellent), 2*
(internationally recognized), E 1* (nationally recognized). Fonte: results.ref.ac.uk.
– Gateway to Research (GTR): All funded projects from UKRI Research Councils (n =
123,399), their associated publications (n = 1,015,664), and outcomes categorized
as policy outcome (n = 39,406). Fonte: gtr.ukri.org.

–

This combination of information allows us to investigate a range of questions that will

inform the potential viability of Overton as a bibliometric data source:

1. What is the makeup of the database in terms of sources indexed by geography, lingua,
type, and year of publication? This analysis will determine, by year of publication, IL
count of policy documents and PDFs indexed according to source type, region, country,
and language. This will reveal potential biases in coverage that would inform suitability
for certain types of analysis. Overton does contain locally relevant policy sources, come
as regional government publications, but not for all geographies.

2. How many scholarly references are extracted and over what time period? This will
measure the total number of references to DOIs extracted according to policy publica-
tion year and source type, and show the count of citations received to DOIs by their
publication year according to broad research area. It is important to know how many
citations to research articles are tracked because the volume will inform their suitability
for citation-based indicator development.

3. How long does it take research articles to accumulate policy citations and how does this
vary across disciplines? This will provide details on how long DOIs take to accumulate
citations, both in absolute volume per year, and cumulatively. Research areas and dis-
ciplines will be analyzed separately to illustrate any differences and to highlight
domains in which citation analysis may be fruitful.

Quantitative Science Studies

628

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

4. What is the time lag between the publication of scholarly works and their citation within
policy literature and how does this vary between disciplines? This will show the distri-
bution from the perspective of citing policy document (cioè., how old are cited refer-
enze?), and from cited DOI (cioè., when are citations to research articles received?). UN
sample of policy sources for healthcare agencies and governmental banks is also bench-
marked to illustrate feasible comparisons. The range and timeliness of evidence used is
an important consideration in policy evaluation and may be possible using the Overton
database.

5. What statistical distribution best models policy citation counts to research articles? Questo
will test the fit of various distributions (per esempio., power law, lognormal, exponential) A
empirical data using conventional probably distribution plots. Analysis by research dis-
cipline and subject will be used to inform potential field-based normalization tech-
Carino (cioè., appropriate level of granularity).

6. How feasible is field-based citation normalization? This will determine if a minimum
sample size can be created for each subject category and year for DOIs published
between 2000 E 2020. This analysis will highlight subjects that may be suitable
for citation metrics and those where insufficient data are available to make robust
benchmarks.

7. Do the citations tracked in the policy literature correlate with policy influence outcomes
attributed to funded grants? This will test the correlation between policy influence
outcomes reported against funded grants (submitted via the ResearchFish platform
to UKRI), and the number of Overton policy citations from DOIs specified as outputs
of these projects. Correlations will also be calculated for each subject according to the
GTR classification.

8. Does the amount of policy citation correlate with peer-review assessment scores as
reported in the UK REF2014 impact case study data? This will test size-independent
correlation (Traag & Waltman, 2019) between normalized policy citation metrics (per-
centiles) and peer-review assessment (secondo 4* rating). Percentiles are calculated
based on year of publication and Scopus ASJC subject categories.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

To analyze data by research subjects, disciplines, and areas, we utilize the Scopus ASJC
journal subject mapping. This is the preferred categorical system for this analysis because it
is matched to the highest number of journals in the data set (compared to Web of Science
journal categories or the ScienceMetrix journal classification), and offers three levels of aggre-
gation (areas → disciplines → subjects).

4. RESULTS

4.1. What Is the Makeup of the Database in Terms of Sources Indexed (by Geography, Language, Type

and Year of Publication)?

The growth of documents indexed in Overton is depicted in Figure 1. Four plots are included
1(UN) the number of documents according to publication source type (government, think tank,
igo, and other); 1(B) the number of documents indexed according to publication source
region; 1(C) by publication source country (top 20); E 1(D): publication language (top 20).
As mentioned earlier, a policy document may contain multiple PDFs, typically language trans-
lations or different parts of a larger report or set of guidelines. The total number of PDFs
indexed is shown with a dotted line in Figure 1(UN), which also corresponds to the total in
Figura 1(D) because PDFs are associated with languages rather than the policy document con-
tainer (cioè., a single policy document may exist in multiple languages as different PDFs). It

Quantitative Science Studies

629

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figura 1. Time-series of Overton policy document count.

should be noted that while there is a significant growth in the total number of documents
indexed, this doesn’t necessarily correlate to a growth in the publication of policy documents
overall—it only reflects how many resources are currently discoverable on the web. In this
sense, our analysis shows that the availability of data is improving.

To illustrate global coverage, we also supply a map in Figure 2. The map includes an insert
showing the number of documents indexed for the top eight regions. Due to the scale differ-
ence between the large number of documents indexed from the United States compared with
other countries, four color bins are used rather than a straightforward linear gradient.

Clearly, Overton is dominated by policy documents published by sources in the United
States, but it also includes significant coverage for Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Ger-
many, France, and Australia, with the majority of content originating from governmental
fonti. The IGO grouping (including organizations such as the WHO, UNESCO, World
Bank, and United Nations) and the European Union also make up a sizable portion of the
database. In terms of the makeup of sources and languages, Figura 3 is included to show
the percentage makeup of documents from the top 30 regions according to source type (left)
and language (middle-left). For language, three values are shown: those in English, those in a
local language, and those in other languages. For the regions IGO and EU, no local languages
are specified. For reference, the total policy document count for each is shown (middle-right,
log scale), along with the 2018 count of articles attributed to the country in the SCImago
journal ranking.

Quantitative Science Studies

630

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Figura 2. Map showing the volume of policy documents indexed by country.

The balance of source types in each country does vary, with some regions almost entirely
represented by governmental sources, such as Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, and Uruguay. IL
unusually high percentage of documents from Australian sources categorized as other is
due to articles indexed from the Analysis & Policy Observatory (also known as APO). Another
large aggregator, PubMed Central, is also indexed by Overton (for practice and clinical

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figura 3. Make up of policy documents by country.

Quantitative Science Studies

631

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

guidelines), but is attributed to the United States and hence only appears as a small fraction of
their output, which is very large overall.

In terms of language balance, many countries have a significant proportion of content in
local languages—more than 80% for France, Japan, Svizzera, Netherlands, Brasile, Taiwan,
Sweden, Spain, Norway, Peru, Czech Republic, and Denmark. Those that do not are either
English-speaking (stati Uniti, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand) or have strong
colonial ties (India and Singapore).

The comparison of Overton content to SCIMago article count is included to show possible
Sopra- and underrepresentation. Per esempio, China produces the second largest number of
academic articles (after the United States) but is only the eighth most frequently indexed coun-
try (excluding IGO and EU) in Overton. In contrasto, Peru and Uruguay produce a much lower
number of research articles than Brazil and Chile, but a similar amount of content is indexed in
Overton.

4.2. How Many Scholarly References Are Extracted and Over What Time Period?

For each PDF indexed by Overton, references to research literature are identified and
extracted. The number of PDFs indexed and the corresponding number of scholarly references
extracted are shown for each year in the period 2000–2020 in Figure 4(UN). Only references to
DOIs are included in this analysis—2,027,440 references to other policy documents are
excluded. The left axis (green) shows the totals and the right axis (blue) shows the average
number of references per PDF. These data are also broken down by publication source type
in Figure 4(B) where the average (mean) is shown for each through the period 2000–2020. IL
type “other” includes articles from PubMed Central, which would account for the relatively
high rate of reference extraction for that source type compared to others, albeit for a small
fraction of the database (Di 1% of PDFs).

Data are also summarized in Table 1 where each row corresponds to a set of policy PDFs
that contain a minimum number of scholarly references. Per esempio, row ≥ 10 counts all
PDFs that have 10 or more references to scholarly articles. There are 214,082 of these
(4.4% of the corpus), accounting for 8,633,884 reference links, O 89% of references overall.
The data indicate that although there are many policy documents that have no references, UN
core set of documents (approximately 200,000) may contain a sufficient number of references
to build useful citation indicators. It is also possible that the documents that have no references

Figura 4. Time-series of Policy Document references extracted.

Quantitative Science Studies

632

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Tavolo 1. Count and percentage of scholarly references made from policy PDFs by reference count
categoria

Refs. count
≥ 0

PDFs
4,854,919

≥ 1

≥ 5

≥ 10

≥ 50

≥ 100

≥ 500

≥ 1000

570,830

305,637

214,082

38,235

14,162

794

181

% PDFs
100.00

11.76

6.30

4.41

0.79

0.29

0.02

0.00

Total refs.
9,747,436

9,747,436

9,248,600

8,633,884

4,772,402

3,139,856

725,307

312,596

% Refs.
100.00

100.00

94.88

88.58

48.96

32.21

7.44

3.21

may be linked to other entities in Overton, such as researchers, institutions and topics of inter-
est, providing other analytical value.

Perhaps of more interest from the perspective of building citation indicators, Figura 5(UN)
presents the number of citations received by DOIs according to their year of publication, dat-
ing back to 1970. The database total is shown in red, along with the corresponding totals for
main research areas (as defined by ASJC). The data show that since 2000, publications have
been cited in each year at least 200,000 times, with a maximum of 404,271 In 2009. We also
use the same data to plot Figure 5(B), which shows the number of unique journals receiving
citations in each year. The total maximum of around 10,000 corresponds well with the core set
of global journals, for example in the Web of Science flagship collection or core publication
list in the Leiden Ranking (Van Eck, 2021).

4.3. How Long Does It Take Research Articles to Accumulate Policy Citations and How Does This Vary

Across Disciplines?

To appreciate the dynamics of how research articles accumulate citations from policy litera-
ture, we plot the number of citations received in years following original publication for DOIs
published in 2000, 2005, 2010, E 2015. In Figure 6(UN), the total number of citations received

Figura 5. Time series of citation counts to DOIs and unique journals.

Quantitative Science Studies

633

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Figura 6. Time series (total and cumulative) of citations received to DOIs published in 2000, 2005, 2010, E 2020.

in each year is plotted, and in Figure 6(B) the cumulative total is displayed. These data indicate
that the citation lifetime for DOIs is not even across years—older publications have received
fewer citations overall and over a longer time period than those published more recently.
Articles published in 2005 peaked 7 years after publication, those published in 2010 peaked
after 4 years, and those published in 2015 after only 2 years. Further investigation is necessary
to understand these differences, but it might be accounted for by the way the database is
growing—an increasing number of documents indexed year-on-year could manifest as a
recency bias.

Differences in the rate of citation accumulation between different disciplines were also ana-
lyzed. In terms of broad research areas, Figura 7(UN) shows cumulative citation rates for articles
that were published in 2010. DOIs published in journals categorized as Social Science and
Humanities received the most citations, followed by Health Sciences and then Life Sciences.
There is marked drop in citation rate for Physical Sciences and Engineering journals. The data
for Social Science and Humanities is further decomposed into disciplines in Figure 7(B) E
reveals most citations in this area are to journals in Social Sciences and Economics fields. Questo
subject balance is in contrast to traditional bibliometric databases which tend to be dominated
by citations to papers in biological and physical sciences, but could reasonably be expected
given the typical domain of policy setting (per esempio., social, economic, and environmental).

Figura 7. Time series of citations received to DOIs.

Quantitative Science Studies

634

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

4.4. What Is the Time Lag Between the Publication of Scholarly Works and Their Citation Within

Policy Literature and How Does This Vary Between Disciplines?

For each year between 2000 E 2020, we analyze the age of cited references in all policy
documents indexed. Per esempio, a policy document published in 2015 that references a DOI
published in 2010 has a cited reference age of 5 years. For the purposes of this analysis, any
reference ages that are calculated to be negative (cioè., the policy document publication date is
before that of the cited reference) are removed on the assumption that they represent data
errors. The distribution of these ages is displayed using standard box and whisker plots in
Figura 8 (orange lines denoting median values, blue triangles for mean). The upper plot
(Figura 8(UN)) aggregates by the publication year of the citing policy document, and the lower
plot (Figura 8(B)) aggregates by the year of publication for the cited DOI. The right insert in
each shows the mean of the distribution for each of the ASJC research areas. Over the 21-year
period sampled, there is little variation in the distribution of cited reference ages, with a mean
of around 10 years (Figura 8(UN)), and no significant differences between research areas (right
plot). Di conseguenza, the distribution of reference ages aggregated by cited DOI publication year
(Figura 8(B)) shows a consistent trend where the oldest publications have had the longest
period to accumulate citations.

Although cited reference age appears to be consistent at a broad level, we also checked for
differences in the age of references between different policy organizations. Two examples are
provided in Figure 9, showing four organizations classified as either Healthcare Agency
(Figura 9(UN)) or Government Bank (Figura 9(B)). In both of these plots, it is apparent that differ-
ent organizations cite research with different age ranges. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figura 8. Age of publications referenced by policy documents.

Quantitative Science Studies

635

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Figura 9. Age of publications referenced by policy organization type.

Technologies in Health Canada cite many more recent articles on average than the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (stati Uniti). Ovviamente, there are many factors that could
influence such a difference, so any interpretation should be mindful of context and compara-
bility of items.

4.5. What Distribution Best Models Policy Citations Counts to DOIs?

When examining the policy citation counts of DOIs, it is apparent that the distribution is
heavy-tailed (Asmussen, 2003). Per esempio, for DOIs published between 2010 E 2014
(n = 731,696), 425,268 are cited only once (58%), and only 25,190 are cited 10 or more times
(3.4%). Prior research using conventional bibliographic databases has investigated possible
statistical distributions that model citation data (Brzezinski, 2015; Eom & Fortunato, 2011;
Golosovsky, 2021; Thelwall, 2016), although there is some disagreement on whether power
law, log-normal, or negative binomial distributions are best. Results vary depending on time
period and discipline analyzed, database used, and if documents with zero citations are
included. For this analysis, uncited DOIs are not known because the database is generated
by following references made at least once from the policy literature.

Figura 10 provides the probability distribution function (PDF—left), cumulative distribution
function (CDF—middle), and complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF—right)
for citations received by DOIs published between 2010 E 2014. We use the Python package
Powerlaw (Alstott, Bullmore, & Plenz, 2014) to fit distributions to exponential, power law, E
lognormal. None of these provide an excellent fit for the data, although lognormal is the

Figura 10. Probability distribution functions for DOIs published between 2010 E 2014.

Quantitative Science Studies

636

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Figura 11. Time-series of citations received to DOIs.

closest. In all cases, the fitted data overestimate slightly the frequency of low-cited DOIs (cioè.,
cited fewer than 10 times). Broadly speaking, it appears as though the distribution of policy
document citations is similar in nature to that of academic citations.

As prior research has shown some variation in citation distributions according to subject
(Wallace, Larivière, & Gingras, 2009), we analyzed a sample of subjects from the ASJC research
areas Social Sciences and Humanities (Figura 11(UN)) and Health Sciences (Figura 11(B)). In both
cases, it is evident that substantial differences occur between subjects. Per esempio, in the
Social Sciences, Economics and Finance receive significantly more citations than in Clinical
Psychology or the Arts. This is important to note, as it informs the selection of granularity for
any field-based normalization. These findings suggest that variation at the subject level is
present and therefore subject-level normalization is preferable, providing sufficiently large
benchmark sets can be constructed.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

4.6. How Feasible Is Field-Based Citation Normalization?

As with standard citation metrics, citation counts from policy documents to DOIs also vary
according to year of publication and field. Hence, we consider the feasibility of producing
field-normalized citation indicators by analyzing the number of DOIs cited at least once
according to subject and year. From a practical point of view, it is necessary to have a minimum
number of DOIs to compare for any combination of subject and publication year. If the data are
too sparse (cioè., there are only a handful of DOIs to compare for any subject-year), more special-
ized techniques are required to give robust results (Bornmann & Haunschild, 2018B).

To illustrate coverage, Figura 12 is provided showing a heatmap of subjects in the discipline
Social Sciences in terms of the number of DOIs cited each year from 2000 A 2020. The color
coding shows cases where n documents are cited where n < 150 (red), 150 ≤ n < 250 (orange), 250 ≤ n < 1,000 (green), and n ≥ 1,000 (blue). According to Rogers et al. (2020), a minimum sample size of 250 is advised for bibliometric samples. The image clearly shows variation in the availability of data. In some subjects, large enough samples could be drawn throughout the study period (e.g., Development, Education, Law), but in other subjects, the data are more sparse and it would be ill-advised to construct normalized indicators (e.g., Human Factors and Ergonomics). As expected, sample sizes are much smaller in the most recent years as these articles are yet to accumulate a significant number of citations. The above analysis was carried out for all 330 ASJC subjects linked in the data, grouped into 26 Quantitative Science Studies 637 Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations Figure 12. Number of DOIs cited at least once in the discipline Social Sciences by subject and year: s < 150 (red), 150 ≤ s < 250 (orange), 250 ≤ s < 1,000 (green), and s ≥ 1,000 (blue). disciplines, to determine the overall spread of data availability. For each row in Table 2, a discipline is listed along with: – – – – – Subjects: The total number of subjects in the discipline. 2000–2020%: The percentage of subjects where n ≥ 250 in every year 2000–2020. 2000–2018%: The percentage of subjects where n ≥ 250 in every year 2000–2018. years%: Across all subjects in the discipline, the percentage of subject-years where n ≥ 250. dois%: Across all subjects, the percentage of DOIs that are in a subject-year where n ≥ 250. From these data, it is clear that some disciplines are well covered and others are not. The best covered (i.e., with years% > 80 and dois% > 90) are Agricultural and Biological Sciences,
Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Environmental Science, Immunology and Microbiol-
ogy, Medicine, and Social Sciences. The least well covered in terms of dois% are Materials
Scienza, Dentistry, Physics and Astronomy, Health Professions, and Chemical Engineering.

Of the 2,270,711 cited DOIs that were published between 2000 E 2018, 2,009,302
(88%) are in a subject that contains at least 250 other cited articles in the same year. Questo
means a subject-level normalization approach is practical and could be applied to a large
portion of scholarly references.

4.7. Do the Citations Tracked in the Policy Literature Correlate With Policy Influence Outcomes

Attributed to Funded Grants?

To validate the citation data linked via the Overton database, we perform an analysis using
data gathered by UK funders from the Gateway to Research (GTR) portal (UKRI, 2018).
Following funding of certain grants in the United Kingdom, academics are required to submit
feedback using the ResearchFish platform stating publications that resulted from the funding,
as well as various research outcomes, including engagement activities, intellectual property,
spin out companies, clinical trials, and more. One of these categories, policy influence, si usa

Quantitative Science Studies

638

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Tavolo 2.

Completeness of disciplines and their subjects in terms of minimum sample size for normalization

Discipline
Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Arts and Humanities

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Business, Management and Accounting

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

Computer Science

Decision Sciences

Dentistry

Earth and Planetary Sciences

Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Energy

Engineering

Environmental Science

Health Professions

Immunology and Microbiology

Materials Science

Mathematics

Medicine

Multidisciplinary

Neuroscience

Nursing

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics

Physics and Astronomy

Psychology

Social Sciences

Veterinary

Subjects
12

2000–2020%
41.7

2000–2018%
83.3

years%
88.9

dois%
98.3

14

16

11

9

8

13

5

5

14

4

6

17

13

16

7

9

15

49

1

10

23

6

11

8

23

5

14.3

31.2

54.5

0.0

12.5

7.7

0.0

0.0

7.1

75.0

16.7

0.0

84.6

0.0

57.1

0.0

0.0

53.1

100.0

10.0

4.3

33.3

0.0

62.5

60.9

20.0

14.3

68.8

63.6

0.0

25.0

7.7

20.0

0.0

42.9

75.0

16.7

29.4

92.3

6.2

71.4

0.0

6.7

73.5

100.0

30.0

8.7

33.3

0.0

62.5

69.6

20.0

35.7

73.2

74.5

16.4

41.1

27.5

36.2

18.1

52.0

95.2

53.2

45.4

97.8

9.2

81.6

23.3

15.9

82.9

82.8

95.9

93.1

59.6

83.1

63.8

70.6

52.4

85.9

99.6

87.1

82.3

99.7

50.8

98.8

51.5

62.4

98.8

100.0

100.0

53.3

17.2

55.6

19.0

73.8

87.8

21.0

83.3

66.6

94.5

53.4

95.8

98.1

74.9

to report various outcomes, including citations from policy documents, clinical guidelines,
and systematic reviews. Data are collected at the project level, each of which is associated
with various DOIs and policy outcomes. For this analysis, a data set is constructed using all
funded grants with a start year between 2014 E 2020, recording the funder and research
subjects specified. The funders analyzed are Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC),
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSCR), Engineering and Physical

Quantitative Science Studies

639

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Medical
Research Council (MRC), and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). 2014 is earliest
year surveyed as it is the year in which ResearchFish was first adopted across all seven
research councils.

For the analysis, data are aggregated at the project level noting the number of DOIs linked
to the project, the total number of policy outcomes reported (referred to as all policy influ-
ence), the number of policy outcomes of the specific type citation (referred to as citation influ-
ence), and the total number of Overton citations. Effectively, this gives two features to
compare—one, self-reported policy outcomes declared by academics, and another by track-
ing citations from policy documents via the Overton database. If Overton is able to index a
sufficiently broad set of materials, these two features should be correlated.

Tavolo 3 provides the correlation statistics (as measured using Pearson) for the complete data
set (All row), and for each research council. Pearson measures the linear correlation between
two sets of data, providing a normalized coefficient between −1 (a perfect negative correla-
zione) E +1 (a perfect positive correlation). Positive effect sizes are commonly characterized as
piccolo (0.1–0.3), medium (0.3–0.5), and large (> 0.5) (Cohen, 1988). The p-values are omitted
because they will only depend on sample size, which is suitably large in this experiment. In
every row, the total number of projects and DOIs they link to is reported (columns Projects and
DOIs), along with two sets of statistics—one testing Overton citation counts against the total
number of policy influence outcomes reported (All policy influence—middle columns), E
the other testing Overton citation counts against the number of policy influence outcomes that
are specifically for citations in policy documents, clinical guidelines, or systematic reviews
(Citation influence only—right columns). In each case, the correlation coefficient r is provided,
as well as the percentage of projected that were linked to any policy influence outcomes. Questo
percentage figure is given to contextualize results, as for some funders the number of projects
associated with any policy outcomes is low. According to these results, the correlation
between the count of policy influence outcomes and the total number of citations in Overton
is larger when considering all policy influence types, rather than only those specifically for
citation, although for EPSRC they are similar, and for ESRC they are higher (r = 0.70). There
is a medium correlation over all funders (r = 0.42), and large correlation for the EPSRC (r =
0.66) and MRC (r = 0.63).

Tavolo 3.
citations in Overton

Pearson correlation between funded projects with policy influence and total policy

Funder
Tutto

AHRC

BBSRC

Projects
67,702

3,902

9,031

DOIs
383,642

14,254

40,642

EPSRC

17,799

106,312

ESRC

MRC

NERC

5,732

5,992

4,727

37,503

60,854

30,035

All policy influence
Projects%
7.13

R
0.42

Citation influence only
Projects%
1.17

R
0.32

0.26

0.30

0.66

0.48

0.63

0.22

13.84

7.60

4.72

16.99

16.41

13.71

0.19

0.23

0.65

0.70

0.20

0.17

2.26

0.68

0.51

4.41

2.42

3.13

640

Quantitative Science Studies

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

The data are further decomposed according to subject category assigned to the grant, COME
depicted in Figure 13. Each grant may be assigned to multiple subjects and is considered in
the calculation for each subject. For each subject (a row), three columns are used to show the
correlation r (red), percentage of projects reporting any policy influence (green), and the total
count of DOIs linked to projects (blue). In this plot, correlations are measured against all policy
influence outcomes (cioè., corresponding to the middle columns in Table 3). When analyzed at

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figura 13. Number of citations to DOIs by research area.

Quantitative Science Studies

641

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

this level of granularity, there is a large spread in the correlation values: 27 are small (0.1–0.3),
23 are medium (0.3–0.5) E 17 are large (> 0.5). Thirteen are not correlated.

These results show that for some subjects, Overton citation data correlates well with policy
influence outcomes reported by academics. This occurs most in subjects that might be
expected to have some policy influence, such as Management & Business Studies (r =
0.84), Psychology (r = 0.83), Human Geography (r = 0.63), Economics (r = 0.60), and Political
Scienza & International Studies (r = 0.58), but also in others that might not, such as Mechanical
Engineering (r = 0.98), Systems engineering (r = 0.93), and Drama & Theatre Studies (r = 0.76).
Essentially, the analysis shows which subjects are most amenable to analysis using Overton
dati.

4.8. Does the Amount of Policy Citation Correlate With Peer-Review Assessment Scores as Reported in

the UK REF2014 Impact Case Study Data?

To test for possible correlation, we utilize the Impact Case Study database from REF2014. Questo
contains 6,637 four-page documents that outline the wider socioeconomic and cultural
impact of research attributed to a particular university and Unit of Assessment (UoA). Part
of the case study document references the original underpinning research (up to six references
per case study) which has been linked via DOIs. By means of peer review, each case study is
scored as 4* (world-leading), 3* (internationally excellent), 2* (internationally recognized), O
1* (nationally recognized). Although the scores for individual cases studies are not known, IL
aggregate scores are made available as the percentage of case studies that received each
score. Hence, it is possible to test possible correlations at the aggregate level (namely, institu-
tion and UoA).

For this analysis, we test the correlation between research scored as 4* (excellent) and cita-
tions to the underpinning research as reported in the Overton database. As the assessment
exercise took place in 2014, only citations from policy documents published in or earlier than
2014 are considered. Rather than test raw citation counts, we calculate a year-subject normal-
ized citation percentile for each DOI using ASJC journal categories (cioè., all DOIs published in
a certain year and subject are compared with each other). Any DOIs in a year-subject group
that contain < 250 examples are marked as invalid and excluded from the analysis. Of the total 24,945 unique DOIs associated with an impact case study, 4,292 are referenced in Overton and have a valid citation percentile. Following the methodology presented in Traag and Waltman (2019), we measure the cor- relation between the percentage of case studies that scored 4* and the percentage of DOIs in the top 99, 90, and 75th Overton citation percentiles. Multiple percentiles were tested as it it not necessarily clear where the benchmark for 4* research would lie. We evaluated 1,847 scores are evaluated—one for each university and UoA. A size-independent test measures the Pearson correlation between the percentage of research scored 4* and the percentage of DOIs with a normalized citation percentile above the threshold. Table 4 provides the results of this analysis. All 36 UoAs are shown along with the Pearson correlation r for three citation percentile thresholds: 99%, 90%, and 75%. In some cases (for example Classics), when no DOIs could be found exceeding the percentile threshold, the cor- relation is undefined and hence, left blank. Based on these results, it is apparent that different percentile thresholds yield different results depending on UoA. For example in UoAs 18—Economics and Econometrics and 25—Education, the highest correlations of 0.52 and 0.46 respectively are obtained with a threshold of 90%, but in UoA 7—Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, a threshold of 99% yields the highest correlation of 0.52. This Quantitative Science Studies 642 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 3 3 6 2 4 2 0 5 7 8 7 1 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 0 4 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations Pearson correlation for REF2014 impact scores marked 4* against Overton citation Table 4. percentiles above three threshold values: 99%, 90%, and 75%. Medium correlations are highlighted with †, large correlations are identified with ⋆ 4*_top99 r 0.20 4*_top90 r 0.24 4*_top75 r 0.25 UoA 1—Clinical Medicine 2—Public Health, Health […] 3—Allied Health Professions, […] 4—Psychology, Psychiatry and […] 5—Biological Sciences 6—Agriculture, Veterinary and […] 7—Earth Systems and […] 8—Chemistry 9—Physics 10—Mathematical Sciences 11—Computer Science and Informatics 12—Aeronautical, Mechanical, […] 13—Electrical and Electronic […] 0.22 0.02 0.18 0.16 0.28 ⋆0.52 0.07 †0.32 14—Civil and Construction Engineering 0.17 15—General Engineering 16—Architecture, Built […] 17—Geography, Environmental […] 18—Economics and Econometrics 19—Business and Management Studies 20—Law 21—Politics and International Studies 22—Social Work and Social Policy 23—Sociology 24—Anthropology and Development […] 25—Education 26—Sport and Exercise Sciences, […] 27—Area Studies 0.13 0.21 †0.39 0.00 0.16 †0.47 0.01 0.10 †0.33 0.22 28—Modern Languages and Linguistics 0.12 29—English Language and Literature 30—History l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 3 3 6 2 4 2 0 5 7 8 7 1 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 0 4 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 −0.20 0.04 0.13 0.08 ⋆0.57 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.27 †0.49 †0.42 −0.22 0.11 †0.34 0.16 ⋆0.52 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.24 0.07 0.15 †0.46 †0.40 †0.44 0.24 0.00 0.12 0.24 0.13 0.27 0.02 ⋆0.54 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.13 †0.30 ⋆0.64 0.11 −0.11 0.15 †0.30 0.20 †0.33 0.18 0.05 0.26 †0.32 0.08 0.21 †0.40 †0.31 †0.42 0.24 0.00 0.13 Quantitative Science Studies 643 Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations UoA 31—Classics 32—Philosophy Table 4. (continued ) 4*_top99 r 4*_top90 r 4*_top75 r 33—Theology and Religious Studies 34—Art and Design: History, […] 35—Music, Drama, Dance and […] 36—Communication, Cultural and […] 0.24 −0.01 †0.38 0.20 0.41 −0.15 0.20 †0.33 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 3 3 6 2 4 2 0 5 7 8 7 1 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 0 4 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 suggests that the threshold for what is considered 4* impact varies across fields in terms of policy influence. This analysis shows that for some UoAs, Overton policy citation percentiles do correlate with peer-review assessment, but less than reported for citation data (Traag & Waltman, 2019) when compared to scoring of outputs. Ideally, the test would only be performed on the subset of case studies that might reasonably be expected to have some form of policy out- come. For example, searching the database for "policy outcome" ∼ 5 OR "policy influence" ∼ 5 (where the ∼ 5 operator specifies that terms must be within five words of each other) returns only 406 results. Hence, our test effectively measures the correlation of impact in general against that of policy citation and could only be expected to find correlation in UoAs where the dominant form of impact is policy-related, such as in UoA 22 Social Work and Social Policy. Unfortunately, because scores are not known for individual case studies, this type of analysis is not possible. 5. DISCUSSION Our analysis of the Overton policy document citation database yields a promising outlook. Using this kind of data, it is possible to link the original research published in scholarly liter- ature to their use in a policy setting environment. The Overton database indexes a sufficient amount of content to create large volumes of citations (> 400,000 every year since 2014)
across a wide range of research topics and journals. Unlike conventional bibliometric data-
bases, citations are more focused towards social sciences, economics, and environmental
sciences than to biological and physical sciences, a feature that suggests novel value in the
content in terms of analytical potential.

The balance of content by region broadly follows that of other bibliometric databases,
namely it is dominated by North America and Europe, but the representation of local language
documents is much higher than in scholarly publishing, where English dominates (Márquez &
Porras, 2020; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Anecdotal evidence in this study hints that Over-
ton may have more equitable coverage across some countries: Figura 3 shows that Peru and
Uruguay have a similar volume of policy documents indexed to Brazil and Chile despite pro-
ducing fewer scholarly works. Tuttavia, more detailed analysis, drawing on other indicators
(per esempio., economic and industrial), is required to produce robust conclusions in relation to this
question.

One important issue that is not addressed in this study is the question of coverage. By index-
ing as much of the freely accessible data on the web, it is possible that some countries, orga-
nization types, or document types are better represented than others. Tuttavia, this is not a

Quantitative Science Studies

644

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

straightforward question to tackle because the universe of policy documents is not well
defined (cioè., what should and should not be considered a policy document?) and the only
route to obtain information on missing sources requires significant manual effort. A practical
approach may be to survey certain policy topics and regions to estimate coverage levels.

Although a significant proportion of the policy documents indexed are not linked to DOIs
(88% of PDFs), a core set of around 200,000 contain more than 8 million references. Questo
reflects the diverse range of material indexed including statistical reports, informal communi-
cations, proceedings, and commentary, many of which one would not expect to contain ref-
erences to original research articles. A considerable pool of citations is generated—between
200,000 E 400,000 per year since 2000 across a broad set of journals. A more detailed
analysis of these data could compare how citations are distributed across journals and if cita-
tions patterns from policy documents follow the same tendencies as scholarly publishing. It
may be true that some journals are able to demonstrate higher utilization in policy documents
relative to a citation-based ranking.

The potential for development of field-normalized citation indicators is good. When ana-
lyzed at the ASJC subject level, many fields contain a sufficient number of cited articles to
create benchmarks (cioè., ≥ 250), especially if the most recent 2 years are excluded. Overall,
88% of articles published between 2000 E 2018 that receive any policy citations could be
field-normalized in this way. Tuttavia, although this approach is practical, it may not be
best—a more detailed analysis comparing normalization results at different levels of granularity
(cioè., field-based or discipline-based) would be required to make any recommendation.

One potentially interesting line of inquiry is that of citation lag. At the macro scale, our
analysis shows there is little variation in the distribution of ages, even across disciplines, Ma
when viewed at a more granular level (such as individual policy organizations), diversity
occurs. This may offer useful insights into the differences between what research is used, In
terms of age and also in citation ranking. Some organizations may favor newer but less estab-
lished evidence than others that prefer older but more widely recognized research.

The distribution of citations accumulated by research articles seems to follow similar trends
to that seen in other altmetric indicators, especially Mendeley, Twitter, and Facebook as
reported in Fang, Costas et al. (2020), and like conventional citation data, are best matched
to a log normal distribution. It is interesting to note that in Fang et al. (2020), 12,271,991 arti-
cles published between 2012 E 2018 were matched to Altmetric data and yielded 156,813
citations across 137,326 unique documents. For the same time period, Overton contains
2,600,464 citations across 1,006,439 unique DOIs. These coverage statistics are not directly
comparable because the original pool of articles surveyed in Fang et al. (2020) is limited to the
Web of Science and Overton tracks citations to any journal. Nevertheless, it does suggest that
Overton tracks substantially more citations to policy literature than Altmetric.

Possibly the most striking and encouraging result is from the analysis of policy influence
outcomes reported to UK funders. Our findings show that for some subjects, correlation
between self-reported data and that extracted from Overton is high. This offers additional
opportunities to reduce reporting burden, through either semiautomated or automated
approcci. Further, it provides a basis to benchmark funders and institutions from different
regions where self-reported data may not be available, although such an analysis should con-
sider coverage variation across geographies.

Finalmente, our experiment to test for possible correlation between peer-review assessment of
impact and Overton policy citations hints at some utility: For certain Units of Assessment, UN
correlation between peer-review score of impact and citation rank does exist, although less

Quantitative Science Studies

645

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

.

/

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

than that seen in other studies that assessed peer-review scores of academic impact against
conventional citation data (Traag & Waltman, 2019). While the REF2014 impact case study
data do provide a unique opportunity to understand how research is assessed from the per-
spective of wider socioeconomic impact, obfuscation of the individual scores prevents deeper
analysis that is focused on research pertinent to policy outcomes. It may be more fruitful to
utilize other sources to benchmark peer review, such as postpublication peer-review score
(Waltman & Costas, 2014).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Martin Szomszor: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Methodology, Visualisation, Writing—original
bozza, Writing—review & editing. Euan Adie: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—review
& editing.

COMPETING INTERESTS

Martin Szomszor is an independent researcher. Euan Adie is Founder and CEO of Overton.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research has been funded by Open Policy Ltd, which runs Overton.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Because Overton is a commercial database, data for this study cannot be shared publicly. For
more information about access to Overton data for research purposes, please email
support@overton.io.

REFERENCES

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. UN. (2015). The VQR, Italy’s second
national research assessment: Methodological failures and rank-
ing distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 66(11), 2202–2214. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
.23323

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Grilli, l. (2021). The effects of
citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation
behavior. Journal of Informetrics, 15(4), 101204. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101204

Abrams, D., Akcigit, U., & Grennan, J. (2018). Patent value and
citations: Creative destruction or strategic disruption? (Tech.
Rep. w19647). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19647

Adams, J., Gurney, K., & Marshall, S. (2007). Profiling citation
impact: A new methodology. Scientometrics, 72(2), 325–344.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1696-x

Adams, J., Marie, M., David, P., & Martin, S. (2019). Profiles, non

metrics. London: Clarivate Analytics.

Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment
of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data
and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis
-2019-0001

Alcácer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of
knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779. https://doi.org/10.1162
/rest.88.4.774

Alcaraz, C., & Morais, S. (2012). Citations: Results differ by data-
base. Nature, 483(7387), 36. https://doi.org/10.1038/483036d,
PubMed: 22382969

Alstott, J., Bullmore, E., & Plenz, D. (2014). Powerlaw: A Python
package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions. PLOS ONE,
9(1), e85777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085777,
PubMed: 24489671

ARC. (2018). ERA national report (Tech. Rep.). Australian Research
Council. https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/ERA/NationalReport/2018/
Asmussen, S. (2003). Steady-state properties of GI/G/1. In Applied
probability and queues (pag. 266–301). New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21525-5_10

BEIS. (2017). International comparative performance of the UK
research base—2016 (Tech. Rep.). A report prepared by Elsevier
for the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
(BEIS). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance
-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2016

Bizer, C., Vidal, M.-E., & Weiss, M. (2018). Resource description
framework. In L. Liu & M. T. Özsu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of data-
base systems (pag. 3221–3224). New York: Springer. https://doi
.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_905

Björk, B.-C., Kanto-Karvonen, S., & Harviainen, J. T. (2020). How
frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited?
Publications, 8(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020017
Bornmann, l. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how
can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803

Bornmann, l. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of
research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of
altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005

Quantitative Science Studies

646

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Bornmann, l. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: UN
meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics,
103(3), 1123–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018UN). Do altmetrics correlate
with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based
on F1000Prime data. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0197133. https://doi
.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197133, PubMed: 29791468

Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018B). Normalization of
zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator
family and its use with altmetrics data. Journal of Informetrics,
12(3), 998–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.010

Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics
assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An
empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on
data from the UK research excellence framework (REF). Journal
of Informetrics, 13(1), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi
.2019.01.008

Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., Boyack, K., Marx, W., & Minx, J. C.
(2022). How relevant is climate change research for climate
change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data.
arXiv:2203.05358. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05358
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Marx, W. (2016). Policy docu-
ments as sources for measuring societal impact: How often is cli-
mate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?
Scientometrics, 109(3), 1477–1495. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-016-2115-y, PubMed: 27942080

Brzezinski, M. (2015). Power laws in citation distributions: Evi-
dence from Scopus. Scientometrics, 103(1), 213–228. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1524-z, PubMed: 25821280

Buckle, R. A., & Creedy, J. (2019). An evaluation of metrics used by
the Performance-based Research Fund process in New Zealand.
New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(3), 270–287. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00779954.2018.1480054

Burke, J., Bergman, J., & Asimov, IO. (1985). The impact of science on
society (Tech. Rep.). National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
zione, Hampton, VA: Langley Research Center.

Bush, V. (1945). Scienza: The endless frontier (Tech. Rep.). [A report
to President Truman outlining his proposal for post-war U.S.
science and technology policy.] Washington, DC.

Butler, l. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI
publications—The effects of a funding formula based on publica-
tion counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0048-7333(02)00007-0

Cagan, R. (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research
Assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869–870.
https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955, PubMed: 23690539

Carpenter, M. P., Cooper, M., & Narin, F. (1980). Linkage between
basic research literature and patents. Research Management,
23(2), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1980.11756595
Chadegani, UN. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi,
M., … Ebrahim, N. UN. (2013). A comparison between two main
academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus
databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18. https://doi.org/10
.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Chowdhury, G., Koya, K., & Philipson, P. (2016). Measuring the
impact of research: Lessons from the UK’s Research Excellence
Framework 2014. PLOS ONE, 11(6), e0156978. https://doi.org
/10.1371/journal.pone.0156978, PubMed: 27276219

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203771587

Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” corre-
late with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators

with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10),
2003–2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309

Demir, S. B. (2020). Scholarly databases under scrutiny. Journal of
Librarianship and Information Science, 52(1), 150–160. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0961000618784159

Eom, Y.-H., & Fortunato, S. (2011). Characterizing and modeling
citation dynamics. PLOS ONE, 6(9), e24926. https://doi.org/10
.1371/journal.pone.0024926, PubMed: 21966387

Eriksson, M., Billhult, A., Billhult, T., Pallari, E., & Lewison, G.
(2020). A new database of the references on international clinical
practice guidelines: A facility for the evaluation of clinical
research. Scientometrics, 122(2), 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11192-019-03318-2

Evenson, R. E., Waggoner, P. E., & Ruttan, V. W. (1979). Economic
benefits from research: An example from agriculture. Scienza,
205(4411), 1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.205
.4411.1101, PubMed: 17735033

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008).
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google
Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2),
338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF, PubMed:
17884971

Fang, Z., Costas, R., Tian, W., Wang, X., & Wouters, P. (2020). An
extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of
Science publications across subject fields and research topics.
Scientometrics, 124(3), 2519–2549. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-020-03564-9, PubMed: 32836523

Gao, J., Yin, Y., Jones, B. F., & Wang, D. (2020). Quantifying policy
responses to a global emergency: Insights from the COVID-19
pandemia. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn
.3634820

Georghiou, l. (1995). Research evaluation in European national
science and technology systems. Research Evaluation, 5(1), 3–10.
https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/5.1.3

Gibbons, M., & Georghiou, l. (1987). Evaluation of research: UN
selection of current practices. Organisation for Economic Coop-
eration & Development.

Golosovsky, M. (2021). Universality of citation distributions: A new
understanding. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 527–543.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00127

Grant, J. (2000). Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from
papers cited in clinical guidelines: Applied bibliometric study.
BMJ, 320(7242), 1107–1111. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.320
.7242.1107, PubMed: 10775218

Grant, J. (2015). The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research
impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework
(REF) 2014 impact case studies (Tech. Rep.). Prepared for the
Higher Education Funding Council of England, Higher Education
Funding Council for Wales, Scottish Funding Council, Depart-
ment of Employment, Learning Northern Ireland, Research
Councils UK, and the Wellcome Trust.

Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S., & Glover, M. (2016).
Research impact: A narrative review. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 78.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8, PubMed: 27211576
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Mendoza, A., & Di
Moya-Anegón, F. (2021). Comparative analysis of the biblio-
graphic data sources Dimensions and Scopus: An approach at
the country and institutional levels. Frontiers in Research Metrics
and Analytics, 5, 593494. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020
.593494, PubMed: 33870055

Guthrie, S., Cochrane, G., Deshpande, A., Macaluso, B., &
Larivière, V. (2019). Understanding the contribution of UK public

Quantitative Science Studies

647

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

health research to clinical guidelines: A bibliometric analysis.
F 1 0 0 0 R e s e a rc h , 8 , 1 0 9 3 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 6 8 8
/f1000research.18757.1, PubMed: 33552472

Hanney, S., Packwood, T., & Buxton, M. (2000). Evaluating the
benefits from health research and development centres: A cate-
gorization, a model and examples of application. Evaluation,
6(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209181
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus
and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary
comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Hicks, D. (2010). Overview of models of performance-based
research funding systems. Performance-based Funding for Public
Research in Tertiary Education Institutions—Workshop Proceed-
ing (pag. 23–52). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264094611-4-en
Hicks, D., & Melkers, J. (2013). Bibliometrics as a tool for research
evaluation. Handbook on the theory and practice of program
evaluation (pag. 323–349). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi
.org/10.4337/9780857932402.00019

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, IO.
(2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.
Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a,
PubMed: 25903611

Jiménez-Contreras, E., Anegón, F. D. M., & López-Cózar, E. D.
(2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact
of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research
Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2

Karvonen, M., & Kässi, T. (2013). Patent citations as a tool for ana-
lysing the early stages of convergence. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 80(6), 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.techfore.2012.05.006

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary
research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-
nology, 59(13), 2060–2069. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20920
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Wikipedia citations impor-
tant evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? Jour-
nal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
68(3), 762–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23694

Kryl, D., Allen, L., Dolby, K., Sherbon, B., & Viney, IO. (2012). Track-
ing the impact of research on policy and practice: Investigating
the feasibility of using citations in clinical guidelines for research
evaluation. BMJ Open, 2(2), e000897. https://doi.org/10.1136
/bmjopen-2012-000897, PubMed: 22466037

Kuhn, J., Younge, K., & Marco, UN. (2020). Patent citations reexa-
mined. The RAND Journal of Economics, 51(1), 109–132.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12307

Lahtinen, E., Koskinen-Ollonqvist, P., Rouvinen-Wilenius, P.,
Tuominen, P., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2005). The development of
quality criteria for research: A Finnish approach. Health Promo-
tion International, 20(3), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1093
/heapro/dai008, PubMed: 15964888

Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Averages of ratios vs. ratios of
medie: An empirical analysis of four levels of aggregation.
Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.joi.2011.02.001

Lopez Pineiro, C., & Hicks, D. (2015). Reception of Spanish soci-
ology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has conse-
quences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030

Márquez, M. C., & Porras, UN. M. (2020). Science communication in
multiple languages is critical to its effectiveness. Frontiers in

Communication, 5, 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020
.00031

Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assess-
ment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02129599

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado
López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, E
Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject cat-
egories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado
López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic,
Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI:
A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scien-
tometrics, 126(1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020
-03690-4, PubMed: 32981987

Mas-Bleda, A., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Estimación del valor educa-
tivo de los libros académicos que no están en inglés: El caso de
España. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 41(4),
e222. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.4.1568

May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Scienza, 275(5301),

793–796. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5301.793

Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing
scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00040-2

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation.

Springer.

Moed, H. F. (2010). CWTS crown indicator measures citation
impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Infor-
metrics, 4(3), 436–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.009
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, UN. F. J.
(1985). A comparative study of bibliometric past performance
analysis and peer judgement. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 149–159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016933

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, UN. (2016). The journal coverage of Web
of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics,
106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: UN
‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 405–419.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv016

Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance mea-
sures. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1007
/BF02129596

Newson, R., Rychetnik, L., King, L., Milat, A., & Bauman, UN. (2018).
Does citation matter? Research citation in policy documents as
an indicator of research impact—An Australian obesity policy
case-study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 55.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0326-9, PubMed: 29950167
NIH. (2008). (NOT-OD-09-025) Enhanced review criteria have
been issued for the evaluation of research applications received
for potential FY2010 funding and thereafter. https://grants.nih.gov
/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-025.html

Olensky, M., Schmidt, M., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). Evaluation of the
citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to
the Web of Science. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 67(10), 2550–2564. https://doi.org/10
.1002/asi.23590

Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, l. (2010). Caveats for the journal and
field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of
research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423–430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003

Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). Web cita-
tions in patents: Evidence of technological impact? Journal of

Quantitative Science Studies

648

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8),
1967–1974. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23821

Overton. (2022). How are scholarly references matched in policy
documents? Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://help.overton
.io/article/ how-are-scholarly-references-matched-in-policy
-documents/.

Pallari, E., Eriksson, M., Billhult, A., Billhult, T., Aggarwal, A., …
Sullivan, R. (2021). Lung cancer research and its citation on clin-
ical practice guidelines. Lung Cancer, 154, 44–50. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.01.024, PubMed: 33611225

Pallari, E., & Lewison, G. (2020). The evidence base of interna-
tional clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer: A global
framework for clinical research evaluation. In C. Daraio & W.
Glänzel (Eds.), Evaluative informetrics: The art of metrics-based
research assessment (pag. 193–212). Springer International Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_9

Pendlebury, D. UN. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics
and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Thera-
piae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005
-009-0008-sì, PubMed: 19219526

Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment,
valutazioni, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research
Evaluation, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021
Pinheiro, H., Vignola-Gagné, E., & Campbell, D. (2021). A large-
scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary
research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the
novel Overton altmetrics database. Quantitative Science Studies,
2(2), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00137

Potter, R. W., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Interpreting CNCIs
on a country-scale: The effect of domestic and international col-
laboration type. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101075. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101075

Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics:

A manifesto (Tech. Rep.). https://altmetrics.org/manifesto

Rafols, I., Ciarli, T., & Chavarro, D. (2020). Under-reporting
research relevant to local needs in the global south. Database
biases in the representation of knowledge on rice. SocArXiv.
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3kf9d

Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., & Duma, D. (2017). Measur-
ing scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing
impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLOS ONE, 12(3),
e0173152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173152,
PubMed: 28278243

REF2020. (2020). Guidance on revisions to REF 2021 (Tech. Rep.).
UKRI. https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1417/guidance-on-revisions
-to-ref-2021-final.pdf

Reinhardt, A., & Milzow, K. (2012). Evaluation in research and research
funding organisations: European practices (Tech. Rep.). European
Science Foundation. https://doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2012.97

Roach, M., & Cohen, W. M. (2013). Lens or prism? Patent citations
as a measure of knowledge flows from public research. Manage-
ment Science, 59(2), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc
.1120.1644, PubMed: 24470690

Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Sample size in bib-
liometric analysis. Scientometrics, 125(1), 777–794. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7

Salter, UN. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly
funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3),
509–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3

Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2015). How is research
blogged? A content analysis approach. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1136–1149.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23239

Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). IL
journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: UN
comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Sivertsen, G. (2018). The Norwegian Model in Norway. Journal of
Data and Information Science, 3(4), 3–19. https://doi.org/10
.2478/jdis-2018-0017

Szomszor, M., Adams, J., Fry, R., Gebert, C., Pendlebury, D. A., …
Rogers, G. (2021). Interpreting bibliometric data. Frontiers in
Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 628703. https://doi.org/10
.3389/frma.2020.628703, PubMed: 33870066

Tattersall, A., & Carroll, C. (2018). What can Altmetric.com tell us
about policy citations of research? An analysis of Altmetric.com
data for research articles from the University of Sheffield. Fron-
tiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2, 9. https://doi.org/10
.3389/frma.2017.00009

Tennant, J. (2020). Web of Science and Scopus are not global data-
bases of knowledge. European Science Editing, 46, e51987.
https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987

Thelwall, M. (2016). The discretised lognormal and hooked power
law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for
modelling and regression. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 336–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.12.007

Thelwall, M. (2018). Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the
Web of Science? Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 430–435. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006

Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013).
Do Altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services.
PLOS ONE, 8(5), e64841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0064841, PubMed: 23724101

Thomas, D. A., Nedeva, M., Tirado, M. M., & Jacob, M. (2020).
Changing research on research evaluation: A critical literature
review to revisit the agenda. Research Evaluation, 29(3), 275–288.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa008

Tijssen, R. J. W., Yegros-Yegros, A., & Winnink, J. J. (2016). University–
industry R&D linkage metrics: Validity and applicability in world
university rankings. Scientometrics, 109(2), 677–696. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2098-8, PubMed: 27795591

Traag, V. A., & Waltman, l. (2019). Systematic analysis of agree-
ment between metrics and peer review in the UK REF. Palgrave
Communications, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019
-0233-X

UKRI. (2018). Gateway to research API 2 (Tech. Rep. Version 1.7.4).

UKRI. https://gtr.ukri.org/resources/GtR-2-API-v1.7.4.pdf

Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., &
Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of dupli-
cate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570–576.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002

van der Meulen, B., & Rip, UN. (2000). Evaluation of societal quality
of public sector research in the Netherlands. Research Evalua-
zione, 9(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154400781777449
Van Eck, N. J. (2021). CWTS Leiden Ranking 2021. https://doi.org

/10.5281/zenodo.4889279

van Raan, UN. F. (2017). Patent citations analysis and its value in
research evaluation: A review and a new approach to map
technology-relevant research. Journal of Data and Information
Scienza, 2(1), 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0002
Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2019). Web of
Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics, 121(3),
1803–1813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z

Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the “absolute
relative” impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 254–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.004

Quantitative Science Studies

649

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations

Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, l. (2021). Large-scale com-
parison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science,
Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Sci-
ence Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009). Modeling a
century of citation distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4),
296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.010

Waltman, l. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact
indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007

Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 recommendations as a
potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison
with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 65(3), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
.23040

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation
impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting
method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872–894. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., &
van Raan, UN. F. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some

theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001

Wang, Q., & Waltman, l. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accu-
racy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and
Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 347–364. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003

Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., …
Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent
review of the role of metrics in research assessment and manage-
ment. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

Yin, Y., Gao, J., Jones, B. F., & Wang, D. (2021). Coevolution of policy
and science during the pandemic. Scienza, 371(6525), 128–130.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe3084, PubMed: 33414211
Yücel, UN. G., & Demir, S. B. (2018). Academic incentive allowance:
Scientific productivity, threats, expectations. International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes
.2018.01.003

Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed
are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of
‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics,
101(2), 1491–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
q
S
S
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
3
6
2
4
2
0
5
7
8
7
1
q
S
S
_
UN
_
0
0
2
0
4
P
D

/

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Quantitative Science Studies

650

Scarica il pdf