تأثیر دانشگاهی در برابر بازتاب اجتماعی: تحلیل همبستگی شاخص‌های علم‌سنجی و دگرسنجی در پژوهش‌های جهانی فقر

Extended Abstract



Purpose: Evaluating the multidimensional impact of scientific research in the contemporary scholarly communication ecosystem necessitates moving beyond unidimensional, citation-based metrics. Traditional scientometrics often fails to capture the broader societal and policy-oriented value of academic outputs. This study aims to investigate the dichotomy and potential convergence between "academic impact" (measured via citations) and "societal-policy resonance" (assessed through altmetrics) within the global poverty literature. Aligning specifically with the first Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 1: No Poverty), this research seeks to determine whether scholarly authority in this critical domain translates into tangible influence within international policy documents and broader public discourse, or if it remains confined within academic silos.



Methodology: This applied, descriptive-analytical research employs a robust hybrid framework combining scientometric and altmetric methodologies. The study population comprised 3,406 records indexed in the Scopus database, published between 2015 (the inception of the SDGs) and early 2026. Subsequent data extraction from the Altmetric Explorer platform revealed that 1,946 of these articles (approximately 57%) possessed at least one social mention (Altmetric Attention Score > 0). For macro-level data analysis, the identification of core journals via Bradford’s Law of Scattering, and network mapping, VOSviewer and the Bibliometrix package in the R programming environment were utilized. Given the highly skewed distribution and overdispersion inherent to altmetric count data, hypothesis testing and predictive modeling were conducted utilizing Spearman's rank correlation and Negative Binomial Regression to ensure empirical validity.



Findings: Scientometric evaluations identified *World Development* as the undisputed core publication outlet. However, structural analysis of co-authorship and reference co-citation networks revealed a profound "epistemic divide." While researchers situated in the Global South predominantly serve as critical field data collectors, the theoretical authority and conceptual framing remain heavily monopolized by Global North institutions. In the altmetric phase, the literature demonstrated substantial policy resonance, recording a total of 4,552 mentions in documents from major transnational organizations, with the World Bank and FAO exerting significant hegemony. Correlation analysis indicated a positive, moderate relationship (r = 0.391, p < 0.001) between total citations and the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Deconstructing this score revealed that hidden academic impact, represented by Mendeley readership, strongly and linearly correlated with future citations (r = 0.812). Conversely, the association between academic impact and social media buzz on platforms like X/Twitter was remarkably weak (r = 0.182). Crucially, the Negative Binomial Regression model proved that, alongside citations and Mendeley readership, the "scientometric prestige" of the publishing journal serves as a powerful predictive catalyst for an article's integration into global policy documents, often overriding raw publication volume.



Conclusion: The attention economy within global poverty studies does not merely mirror academic authority; rather, it operates as a distinct ecosystem governed by divergent power dynamics. The absolute hegemony of mainstream macroeconomic journals in shaping global policy documents reflects a systemic reproduction of the "Matthew Effect" (accumulated advantage) in the science-to-society knowledge transfer. To effectively implement empirical poverty alleviation policies, international funding agencies and policymakers must transcend their exclusive reliance on Q1 Global North macroeconomic journals. Research evaluation mechanisms must be strategically upgraded to capture and integrate insights from emerging, interdisciplinary research fronts—such as energy poverty and financial inclusion—ensuring that diverse, empirically grounded solutions reach the policy arena.