What types of LIS research are preferred in evidence-informed public policy development? Investigating differences in policy citations of Review Articles and Original Research
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
What types of LIS research are preferred in evidence-informed public policy development? Investigating differences in policy citations of Review Articles and Original Research
Academic research, including library and information science (LIS) studies, cited as evidence for public policy development, is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, what types of LIS research are more favored by public policymakers remains unknown. Review articles and original research articles published in LIS journals between 2000 and 2020 were selected as the sample (n = 34,977). Negative binomial regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression were used to examine the data. Linear regression models and an alternative outcome variable were used to check the robustness of the results. The findings revealed that review articles can achieve higher policy citations compared to original research articles. This study could enhance the understanding of bridging the divide between LIS research and policy development practices.
AbbottRBethelARogersM, et al (2022) Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: A meta-research study. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine27(3): 169–177.
2.
AbrizahANoorhidawatiAZainabAN (2015) LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics102(2): 1083–1099.
AgyekumGOOforiMFAdarkwaSA, et al (2024) A cross-sectional study on the occurrence of maternal mortality in some selected hospitals in Kumasi metropolis using zero-inflated negative binomial. Journal of Probability and Statistics2024(1): 7.
5.
AlomarAZAl JediaKMShadidAM, et al (2022) Concurrent research around meniscus: A bibliometric analysis and review of the top fifty cited papers. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics56(5): 785–796.
6.
Al SabahiSWilsonMGLavisJN, et al (2022) Examining and contextualizing approaches to establish policy support organizations - A Critical Interpretive Synthesis. International Journal of Health Policy and Management11(5): 551–566.
7.
AngelouALadiSPanagiotatouD, et al (2024) Paths to trust: Explaining citizens’ trust to experts and evidence-informed policymaking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Administration102(3): 1008–1025.
8.
Arco-TiradoJLFernández-MartínFDHervás-TorresM, et al (2024) A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis on effective reading programs in Spanish. Review of Educational Research 1–35. DOI: 10.3102/00346543241297668
9.
AsaadMKallarackalAPMeaikeJ, et al (2020) Citation skew in plastic surgery journals: Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate?Aesthetic Surgery Journal40(10): 1136–1142.
10.
AulaV (2023) Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures: Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland. Policy and Politics51(4): 673–694.
11.
BamusaB (2022) Fifty influential articles in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences Journal: A bibliometric analysis. Mymensingh Medical Journal31(2): 569–579.
12.
BaronSRussell-BennettR (2016) Editorial: Beyond publish or perish: The importance of citations and how to get them. Journal of Services Marketing30(3): 257–260.
13.
BarriosMGuileraGGómez-BenitoJ (2013) Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences. Journal of Informetrics7(2): 478–486.
14.
BeaujeanAAGrantMB (2016) Tutorial on using regression models with count outcomes using R. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation21(1): 2.
15.
BeelJGippB (2009) Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (An empirical study). In: 2009 Third international conference on research challenges in information science, Fez, Morocco, pp.439–446. IEEE.
16.
Berger-TalOWongBBMAdamsCA, et al (2024) Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution39(6): 548–557.
17.
BhaumikSBeriDLassiZS, et al (2020) Interventions for the management of snakebite envenoming: An overview of systematic reviews. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases14(10): e0008727.
18.
BhupatirajuSNomaler TriulziG, et al (2012) Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies. Research Policy41(7): 1205–1218.
19.
Boaye BelleAZhaoY (2023) Evidence-based decision-making: On the use of systematicity cases to check the compliance of reviews with reporting guidelines such as PRISMA 2020. Expert Systems with Applications217: 119569.
20.
BoogaardHAtkinsonRWBrookJR, et al (2023) Evidence synthesis of observational studies in environmental health: Lessons learned from a systematic review on traffic-related air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives131(11): 1–10.
21.
BornmannLHaunschildRMarxW (2016) Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?Scientometrics109(3): 1477–1495.
22.
BoswellJ (2018) What makes evidence-based policy making such a useful myth? The case of NICE guidance on bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom. Governance31(2): 199–214.
23.
BraggePClarkECDelafosseV, et al (2025) What happened next? A survey of review clients evaluating impacts of rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology180: 111673.
24.
BriscoeSMelendez-TorresGJShawL, et al (2025) Framing systematic reviews commissioned by policymakers as a hermeneutic process: A methodological commentary. Methodological Innovations18: 114–126.
BundiPTreinP (2022) Evaluation use and learning in public policy. Policy Sciences55(2): 283–309.
27.
CairneyP (2016) Health and advocacy: what are the barriers to the use of evidence in policy? In: CairneyP (ed.) The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.51–84.
CookeSJCookCNNguyenVM, et al (2023) Environmental evidence in action: On the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Environmental Evidence12(1): 10.
30.
DareboTDSpigtMTeklewoldB, et al (2024) The sexual and reproductive healthcare challenges when dealing with female migrants and refugees in low and middle-income countries (a qualitative evidence synthesis). BMC Public Health24(1): 520.
31.
de AlmeidaECEGuimarãesJA (2013) Brazil’s growing production of scientific articles—how are we doing with review articles and other qualitative indicators?Scientometrics97(2): 287–315.
32.
de JongJHansenJGroenewegenP (2019) Why do we need for timeliness of research in decision-making?European Journal of Public Health29(Supplement_4): ckz185.216.
33.
de Sandes-GuimarãesLVVelhoRPlonskiGA (2022) Interdisciplinary research and policy impacts: Assessing the significance of knowledge coproduction. Research Evaluation31(3): 344–354.
34.
DevaneDHamelCGartlehnerG, et al (2024) Key concepts in rapid reviews: An overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology175: 111518.
35.
DunnGLaingM (2017) Policy-makers perspectives on credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE). Environmental Science & Policy76: 146–152.
36.
GaravitoGAAMonizTMansillaC, et al (2024) Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector- A rapid evidence review. BMC Health Services Research24(1): 261.
37.
GarrittyCStevensAHamelC, et al (2019) Knowledge synthesis in evidence-based medicine. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine49(2): 136–144.
38.
GondivkarSMSarodeSCGadbailAR, et al (2018) Bibliometric analysis of 100 most cited articles on oral submucous fibrosis. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine47(8): 781–787.
39.
GoughDThomasJOliverS (2017) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage Publications Ltd.
40.
GrantMJBoothA (2009) A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal26(2): 91–108.
41.
GuleidFHNjeruAKiptimJ, et al (2022) Experience of Kenyan researchers and policy-makers with knowledge translation during COVID-19: A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open12(6): e059501.
42.
GustavsonAMMorrowCDBrownRJ, et al (2024) Reimagining how we synthesize information to impact clinical care, policy, and research priorities in real time: Examples and lessons learned from COVID-19. Journal of General Internal Medicine39(13): 2554–2559.
43.
HadornSSagerFMavrotC, et al (2022) Evidence-based policymaking in times of acute crisis: Comparing the use of scientific knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Politische Vierteljahresschrift63(2): 359–382.
44.
HaiderSChaikledkaewUThavorncharoensapM, et al (2019) Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Open Forum Infectious Diseases6(4): ofz117.
45.
HammersleyM (2023) Was the UK government’s policymaking ‘evidence-based’ during the pandemic? Reflections on science and politics. Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation2023(2): 217–242.
46.
HaunschildRBornmannL (2017) How many scientific papers are mentioned in policy-related documents? An empirical investigation using web of science and Altmetric data. Scientometrics110(3): 1209–1216.
47.
HoMHCLiuJSChangKCT (2017) To include or not: The role of review papers in citation-based analysis. Scientometrics110(1): 65–76.
48.
HuangMHShawWCLinCS (2019) One category, two communities: subfield differences in “Information Science and Library Science” in Journal Citation Reports. Scientometrics119(2): 1059–1079.
49.
HuangZZongQJiX (2022) The associations between scientific collaborations of LIS research and its policy impact. Scientometrics127(11): 6453–6470.
50.
HuiARainsLSToddA, et al (2020) The accuracy and accessibility of cited evidence: A study examining mental health policy documents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology55(1): 111–121.
51.
KaraismailogluBKorogluAECelayirA, et al (2022) Bibliometric analysis of 100 most influential papers related to septic arthritis of native joints. Journal of Orthopaedics34: 178–182.
52.
KhalidAFGrimshawJMParakhND, et al (2023) Decision-makers’ experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research23(1): 282.
53.
KimHSJWahidMChoiC, et al (2020) Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of ten major dermatology journals. Burns46(7): 1686–1692.
54.
KlepacBKraheMSpaaijR, et al (2023) Six public policy recommendations to increase the translation and utilization of research evidence in public health practice. Public Health Reports138(5): 715–720.
55.
KumarMBTaegtmeyerMMadanJ, et al (2020) How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries. Health Policy and Planning35(7): 799–809.
56.
KumarVBarikSRajV, et al (2025) Precision and sensitivity. Clinical Spine Surgery38(1): 34–36.
57.
LaaksoM (2014) Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics99(2): 475–494.
58.
LammersWPattynVFerrariS, et al (2024) Evidence for policy-makers: A matter of timing and certainty?Policy Sciences57(1): 171–191.
59.
LeeKHPedrozaCAvritscherEBC, et al (2023) Evaluation of negative binomial and zero-inflated negative binomial models for the analysis of zero-inflated count data: Application to the telemedicine for children with medical complexity trial. Trials24(1): 613.
60.
LeiLSunY (2020) Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor. Scientometrics122(3): 1697–1706.
61.
LiuJSLuLYYLuWM, et al (2013) Data envelopment analysis 1978–2010: A citation-based literature survey. Omega41(1): 3–15.
62.
MatsudaSYoshimuraH (2023) Evidence-based policy making during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A systematic review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine38(2): 247–251.
63.
McDonaldCKMoriartyPVarzgalisM, et al (2017) The top 50 most cited articles in cartilage regeneration. BioResearch Open Access6(1): 58–62.
64.
McMahanPMcFarlandDA (2021) Creative destruction: The structural consequences of scientific curation. American Sociological Review86(2): 341–376.
65.
MirandaRGarcia-CarpinteroE (2018) Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics12(4): 1015–1030.
66.
MunnZPetersMDJSternC, et al (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology18(1): 143.
67.
NewsonR (2021) Measuring the policy impact of population health research. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sydney.
68.
NewsonRRychetnikLKingL, et al (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 Systems16(1): 55.
NutleySMWalterIDaviesHTO (2007) Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
71.
Ofori-BoatengRTrujillo-EscobarTGAceves-MartinsM, et al (2024) Enhancing systematic reviews: An in-depth analysis on the impact of active learning parameter combinations for biomedical abstract screening. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine157: 102989.
72.
OliverKInnvarSLorencT, et al (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research14(1): 1–12.
73.
OrtonLLloyd-WilliamsFTaylor-RobinsonD, et al (2011) The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One6(7): e21704.
PerraMBrinkmanT (2021) Seeing science: using graphics to communicate research. Ecosphere12(10): e03786.
76.
PetkovicJWelchVJacobMH, et al (2016) The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: A systematic review. Implementation Science11(1): 162.
77.
PinheiroHVignola-GagnéECampbellD (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 Studies2(2): 616–642.
78.
QayoomAWangM-HNadir AliS (2020) Bibliometric analysis of adsorption literatures: Contribution from Pakistan (1991-2017). Journal of the Chemical Society of Pakistan42: 474–487.
79.
SandersonI (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration80(1): 1–22.
80.
SatnarineT (2023) Systematic review methodology: Conducting High-quality reviews and understanding their significance in evidence-based practice. Journal For International Medical Graduates2(1): 1–7.
81.
ScottJTCollierKMPugelJ, et al (2023a) SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement: A randomized controlled trial of the SCOPE model on state legislators' research use in public discourse. Implementation Science18(1): 12–13.
82.
ScottTPugelJFernandesM, et al (2023b) Cutting through the noise during crisis by enhancing the relevance of research to policymakers. Evidence & Policy19(2): 178–195.
83.
ShakeelYAlchokrRKrügerJ, et al (2022) Altmetrics and citation counts: an empirical analysis of the computer science domain. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Cologne, Germany, p. 17. Association for Computing Machinery.
84.
SmithNRMazzuccaSHallMG, et al (2022) Opportunities to improve policy dissemination by tailoring communication materials to the research priorities of legislators. Implementation Science Communications3(1): 1–9.
85.
SobierajDMBakerWL (2021) Research and scholarly methods: Systematic reviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy4(7): 849–854.
86.
SohrabiCFranchiTMathewG, et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines. International Journal of Surgery88: 105918.
Suero-AbreuGABarajas-OchoaABerkowitzR (2021) An analysis of global research trends and top-cited research articles in cardio-oncology. Cardiology Research12(5): 309–317.
89.
SzomszorMAdieE (2022) Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations. Quantitative Science Studies3(3): 624–650.
90.
TeixeiraMCThomazSMMichelanTS, et al (2013) Incorrect citations give unfair credit to review authors in ecology journals. PLoS One8(12): e81871.
91.
Treviño-JuarezAS (2024) Assessing risk of bias using ChatGPT-4 and Cochrane ROB2 tool. Medical Science Educator34(3): 691–694.
92.
UllahAHayatSAmeenK (2024) Impact of research characteristics and methodologies used in LIS articles on citation count. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/09610006241269139
93.
Ulugerger AvciG (2023) A bibliometric perspective to the most cited diabetes articles. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders22(1): 763–773.
94.
UnekeCJSombieIJohnsonE, et al (2020) Promoting the use of evidence in health policymaking in the ECOWAS region: The development and contextualization of an evidence-based policymaking guidance. Globalization and Health16(1): 73.
95.
UttleyLQuintanaDSMontgomeryP, et al (2023) The problems with systematic reviews: A living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology156: 30–41.
96.
VarallyayNILangloisEVTranN, et al (2020) Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: Development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Research Policy and Systems18(1): 64.
97.
WangXLiuCMaoW, et al (2015) The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics103(2): 555–564.
98.
WolfDMWilliamsonPA (2009) Impact factor and study design: The academic value of published research (AVaRes) score. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England91(1): 71–73.
99.
WuQYuanTZhangZ, et al (2020) The top 100 most impactful articles and recent trends in nasopharyngeal carcinoma from 1970 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of International Medical Research48(1): 0300060519896149.
100.
XieFGhozySKallmesDF, et al (2022) Do open-access dermatology articles have higher citation counts than those with subscription-based access?PLoS One17(12): e0279265.
101.
XuCZongQ (2023) The effects of international research collaboration on the policy impact of research: A causal inference drawing on the journal Lancet. Journal of Information Science 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/01655515231174381
102.
XuCZongQ (2024) Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference. Science and Public Policy51(3): 477–490.
103.
YangLCLiuFHLiuCM, et al (2023) Bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles in Journal of Dental Sciences. Journal of Dental Sciences18(1): 338–344.
104.
YuDGuoSYangY, et al (2024) Governance policy evaluation in the United States during the pandemic: nonpharmaceutical interventions or else?Annals of the American Association of Geographers114(3): 437–461.
105.
YuXZongQLinL, et al (2025) Is research from government agencies more favored by policymakers? Empirical evidence from a scientometric analysis. Scientometrics130(9): 5227–5247. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05405-z
106.
ZaccagniniMLiJ (2023) How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis: A guide for clinicians. Respiratory Care68(9): 1295–1308.
107.
ZhangSFanHZhangY (2021) The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia research: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry12: 714627.
108.
ZhaoYYinZDuH, et al (2023) The latest research trends in primary biliary cholangitis: A bibliometric analysis. Clinical and Experimental Medicine23(2): 347–355.
109.
ZongQHuangZHuangJ (2023) Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact? Using regression analysis and causal inference. Scientometrics128(8): 4825–4854.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
