Research impact assessment is a systematic and data based analysis, which aim to determine or predict the social or economic impacts of research and related activities (1). In fact, the scope of research evaluation has become more widespread; it does not only cover the product (output), utilization and benefits (2) but also assesses the impact of science on human life and health, organizational capabilities, group behavior, environment and so on (3). 
Up to now, one of the most advanced examples of impact assessment has taken place in the Netherlands. In this country, research evaluation is carried out along with a qualitative assessment, and mainly focuses on the economic value of government funded studies (4). Also, based on the Muhonen study in 2020 in the Netherlands, a conceptual framework was developed for evaluating societal research impact. The pipeline model was also a robust tool for societal impact evaluation in other countries (5).
In 2018, Stina Hansson identified three main key aspects of effective research impact, consisting of relevancy, credibility, and legitimacy (6). In many countries, societal quality evaluation especially for basic and strategic research is not clear (5). In fact, there are knowledge gaps and challenges for sustainability assessment of societal impact (7). In many studies, the social impact of research is greater than to show (8); in almost all, different systematic measurements and related indicators are completely absent from the literature. In recent years, there is more emphasis on social impact assessment, especially in medical and health fields (9).
Economic impact analyses often estimate three types of impact, consist of Output Impact, Value Added impact and Labor Income Impact. In economic impact evaluation, measuring the return on investments is feasible, but it is not economical; it should be accurate and eligible in the rational assessment budget, which assesses a small percentage of the invested money in the research (10).
In order to assess the socio-economic impact, it is needed to have valid and reliable indicators. The indicators should have clearly coherence between what is measured and what should be measured (9). Also, it is especially desirable to have simple indicators, which provide a meaningful assessment (11)
Today, different institutions design research impact evaluation indicators. In the United Kingdom, Research Excellence Framework (REF) is one of the best well-known evaluation systems, which has evaluated all kinds of social, economic and cultural impacts beyond academia (12). In 2009, Elsevier has established another citation database named SciVal, which is one of the most professional scientometric tools for research organizations and universities. This database has many practical functions, such as societal and economic impact evaluation (13).
 Also, In Iran, various indicators have been designed to evaluate all Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences (IUMS) and Medical Research Centers (MRCs) research activities since 2000. Many of these indicators have been used for output evaluation, and there are few indicators for impact assessment; there has never been enough attention to socio economic effect of research (14-17).
So, in this study by extracting the impact indicators values in SciVal, we evaluated the socioeconomic impact of researches in IUMS for the first time. This research is important because of two main reasons; the first, for the first time in Iran, the data based on a credible database has been used for socioeconomic evaluation, and the second, the level of evaluation has been deepened and transcends the output layer, and dealt with effectively.

 

Discussion

Based on our study results, more than one-third of the IUMS had no health research activities with socioeconomic impact, and the index values for almost one-third of the IUMS were at the minimum level.
The maximum values of indicators affiliated to Tehran University of medical sciences. In this university, the C-P count was only 47. In the Turkey universities such as Ankara University or Istanbul University, this index value is 1 and 17, respectively. This index value for Harvard, Stanford and California universities is 1553, 727 and 2609, respectively (16). Based on Valero et al. study in 2019, the size and quality of research activities in universities are likely to matter in economic impact. Also, patents registration has a positive direct association with GDP per Capita or economic effects.  In a region or country, 10% increase in the number of universities is associated with an almost 0.4% higher GDP per capita (17).
Research impact assessment in many studies has been done according to citation based indicators, reducing cost or working days lost due to illness and so on. Yazdizadeh et al. studied the impact assessment of 238 Iranian research projects, according to the payback framework. They found that, only 5.3% of research projects have been used by the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education in policymaking; of which, 62% were expected to lead to health impacts directly, and nearly 36% had potentially economic impact, such as reducing cost or number of working days lost due to illness (18).   
It should also be noted, that entrepreneurship such as establishment of knowledge-based corporations is very effective to enhance the economic impact. In the United Kingdom, entrepreneurial spin-offs in high economic impact universities and knowledge translation exchange in others are associated with higher economic impact (19).
Regarding to societal impact, since this phenomenon is very complex and involves a large scale of direct and indirect activities, it will be hard to develop objective and simple indicators. Mass media or media exposure are two indicators to measure societal impact of research by knowledge translation to the community (20).
Based on our results, almost 64% of IUMS had research activities with societal impacts. The maximum MM (max=320) was related to Tehran university of medical sciences. Harvard, Stanford and California MM index was 51405, 27215 and 91951, respectively (18). In 2007, Martin described four problems in societal impact assessments, consist of causality, attribution, internationality and evaluation timescale problems (21).
This study has some strengths and weak points. One of the most important strengths is using simple and accessible indicators based on the scientific reliable database. Also, establishing a valuable scoring system based on stakeholders opinions is associated with complet innovation. The most important weak point in this study is failure to consider all aspects of economic and social in research.
 

Conclusion

Socioeconomic impact evaluation is very complex, and involves a large scale of direct and indirect activities. Therefore, evaluation by a limited number of indicators cannot provide a comprehensive view of the effect. Quantity and quality of research activities in universities are likely to matter in socioeconomic impact.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Research Experts at the Deputy of Research and Technology – Ministry of Health and Medical Education and universities of medical science for their assistance with data collection and review.

 

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.