Uncovering the Science-Policy Interface: Applying Bibliometric Approaches to the Wildfire Risk Management Domain

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Juliane Schlierkamp, Claudia Berchtold, Isabelle Linde-Frech
{"title":"Uncovering the Science-Policy Interface: Applying Bibliometric Approaches to the Wildfire Risk Management Domain","authors":"Juliane Schlierkamp,&nbsp;Claudia Berchtold,&nbsp;Isabelle Linde-Frech","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as science is increasingly seen as a means to address humanity’s grand challenges. Consequently, interaction between science and policymakers is essential — a process formalized through Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs). But who actually participates in these processes? This question is crucial, as scientific findings are not always consistent: they may be subject to interpretation, contradict each other, or be shaped by underlying normative frameworks. This paper explores the potential of bibliometric analysis to trace science-policy interactions, using the Wildfire Risk Management (WFRM) domain as a case study. Drawing on data from the Dimensions database, we examine publication and policy trends, disciplinary coverage, and the influence of Altmetrics on policy citations. Our key findings indicate that: There is a significant time lag (6–9 years) between scientific publication and policy adoption. The number of publications in a research field correlates with policy citations, but not all disciplines are equally represented in policy documents. Altmetrics, particularly social media attention, influence policy uptake, suggesting that visibility beyond academia plays a role in knowledge transfer. Data quality issues in linking scientific research to policy documents persist, limiting full traceability. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of bibliometric approaches to support the development of more transparent and accountable SPIs. With improved data infrastructure, such methods could help policymakers better identify and integrate relevant scientific insights.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":"75 6","pages":"1368 - 1387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as science is increasingly seen as a means to address humanity’s grand challenges. Consequently, interaction between science and policymakers is essential — a process formalized through Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs). But who actually participates in these processes? This question is crucial, as scientific findings are not always consistent: they may be subject to interpretation, contradict each other, or be shaped by underlying normative frameworks. This paper explores the potential of bibliometric analysis to trace science-policy interactions, using the Wildfire Risk Management (WFRM) domain as a case study. Drawing on data from the Dimensions database, we examine publication and policy trends, disciplinary coverage, and the influence of Altmetrics on policy citations. Our key findings indicate that: There is a significant time lag (6–9 years) between scientific publication and policy adoption. The number of publications in a research field correlates with policy citations, but not all disciplines are equally represented in policy documents. Altmetrics, particularly social media attention, influence policy uptake, suggesting that visibility beyond academia plays a role in knowledge transfer. Data quality issues in linking scientific research to policy documents persist, limiting full traceability. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of bibliometric approaches to support the development of more transparent and accountable SPIs. With improved data infrastructure, such methods could help policymakers better identify and integrate relevant scientific insights.

揭示科学-政策界面:应用文献计量学方法到野火风险管理领域。
随着科学越来越被视为解决人类重大挑战的一种手段,研究的影响正变得越来越重要。因此,科学与政策制定者之间的互动至关重要——这是一个通过科学-政策接口(SPIs)形式化的过程。但谁真正参与了这些过程呢?这个问题至关重要,因为科学发现并不总是一致的:它们可能会受到解释的影响,相互矛盾,或者受到潜在规范框架的影响。本文以野火风险管理(WFRM)领域为例,探讨了文献计量分析在追踪科学与政策相互作用方面的潜力。利用Dimensions数据库中的数据,我们研究了出版和政策趋势、学科覆盖范围以及Altmetrics对政策引用的影响。研究结果表明:科学论文发表与政策采纳之间存在明显的时滞(6 ~ 9年);一个研究领域的出版物数量与政策引用有关,但并非所有学科在政策文件中都有平等的代表性。其他指标,特别是社交媒体关注,会影响政策的吸收,这表明学术界以外的知名度在知识转移中发挥着作用。将科学研究与政策文件联系起来的数据质量问题仍然存在,限制了完全的可追溯性。尽管存在这些限制,但该研究强调了文献计量学方法在支持发展更透明和更负责任的spi方面的潜力。通过改进数据基础设施,这些方法可以帮助决策者更好地识别和整合相关的科学见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信