علم برای علم یا علم برای سیاست: تحلیل اثربخشی انتشارات علمی ایران بر اسناد سیاست جهانی

Purpose: Altmetrics, particularly citations in policy documents, have emerged as innovative tools to capture how research contributes to shaping policy discourse and societal outcomes. This study examines the societal footprint of Iranian scientific research within global policy contexts from 2013 to 2022. Using data from the Overton database, the world’s most comprehensive platform for tracking citations in policy documents, the study investigates how Iranian-authored research permeates international policy discussions. The main objectives are to quantify the frequency and distribution of policy citations to Iranian research, explore the qualitative aspects of this influence by identifying thematic trends, leading policy actors, and driving factors, and assess the alignment between Iranian scientific output and global policy priorities. The study aims to highlight the societal relevance of Iranian scholarship and provide actionable insights to enhance its policy visibility, reinforce scientific diplomacy, and support evidence-informed governance.
Methodology: The research population comprised all Iranian-affiliated articles indexed in the WOSCC during 2013–2022. A random sample of 35,000 articles was drawn to ensure representativeness. Each article’s DOI was systematically queried in Overton to detect policy citations. Established in 2019, Overton aggregates over 17 million policy documents from 32,000 organizations in 188 countries, supporting multilingual analysis, including Persian. The dataset extracted covered seven analytical dimensions: (1) citation frequency, (2) temporal patterns, (3) citing countries and organizations, (4) document types, (5) subject areas, (6) journal quartiles, and (7) academic citation percentiles. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) assessed longitudinal trends; Pearson correlation examined relationships between journal quartile and policy citations (r = –0.068, p < 0.05); and independent t-tests compared the policy impact of highly cited and less-cited articles (p < 0.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test evaluated differences across subject domains.
Findings: Only 3.4% (1,190 of 35,000) of Iranian articles received at least one policy citation, reflecting a modest yet notable societal impact compared with the global benchmark of 3.9% reported by Fang et al. (2024). However, the temporal trend revealed a steep decline, with a CAGR of –97.47%, indicating a marked reduction in policy relevance over the decade. This decrease may reflect shifting research priorities, reduced international engagement, and limited institutional mechanisms for policy-oriented communication. Geographically, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) accounted for the largest share of citations (n = 513), followed by the United States (n = 456) and the United Kingdom (n = 199), suggesting that Iranian research retains a degree of visibility within international policy networks despite geopolitical barriers. Government reports and policy briefs were the dominant citing document types, demonstrating their critical role in integrating academic findings into practical policymaking. Disciplinary analysis identified Medicine as the leading field, accounting for 42% of policy citations, followed by Environmental Sciences (28%) and Engineering (19%), aligning with global policy priorities such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The correlation analysis revealed a weak negative relationship between journal quartile and policy citation frequency (r = –0.068, p < 0.05), implying that publications in higher-ranked journals (Q1–Q2) were slightly more influential in policy contexts. Moreover, highly cited papers (top 1% of academic citation percentiles) demonstrated significantly higher policy citation rates (p < 0.001), confirming the Matthew effect, where academic visibility enhances societal influence. Regional analysis showed limited reach within neighboring countries, only 47 citations from Turkey and 32 from Pakistan, indicating untapped opportunities for regional scientific diplomacy and cooperation.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that although Iranian research has the potential to inform policymaking, its societal influence remains limited and uneven. The low and declining rate of policy citations suggests a prevailing “science for science” orientation rather than a “science for action” model. Structural challenges—such as weak interdisciplinary collaboration, insufficient mechanisms for knowledge translation, and limited engagement with international policy networks—constrain the translation of research into practice. Addressing these gaps requires strategic investment in policy-oriented research, stronger institutional linkages between academia and governance, and greater emphasis on capacity building. Promoting problem-driven, interdisciplinary studies aligned with global challenges such as climate change, health security, and sustainability could enhance Iran’s contribution to international policymaking. This study also validates Overton as a reliable altmetric tool for tracking the policy impact of science. The establishment of a national policy citation index is recommended to systematically monitor domestic and regional policy engagement and complement international data. Future research should incorporate qualitative content analysis to explore the contextual meaning of policy citations—whether supportive, critical, or interpretive—thereby offering a richer understanding of how scientific evidence shapes policy discourse. In conclusion, bridging the science–policy divide requires fostering an ecosystem that values translational research, supports evidence-based governance, and integrates scientific expertise into policymaking. Such efforts would amplify the societal relevance of Iranian science, enhance its visibility in global decision-making, and contribute to the country’s broader development and scientific diplomacy objectives.