ADA urges NIH to broaden measures of scientific impact

Association calls for transparent, flexible approach that recognizes varied research contributions 

The ADA is urging the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, to take a broader approach to measuring scientific impact while ensuring that new measures are transparent, verifiable and appropriate across different fields and institutions. 

The ADA submitted comments in response to NIH’s Request for Information on Measuring and Rewarding Scientific Impact, which is examining ways to assess scientific contributions beyond traditional measures such as publication and citation counts. 

“The ADA supports broadening the assessment of scientific impact beyond publication counts and citation metrics,” the Association said. “At the same time, NIH should avoid replacing one overly narrow set of measures with another.” 

According to the letter, new indicators should be transparent, verifiable and appropriate to the relevant field and research stage. The ADA said measures should also recognize that scientific impact can emerge on different timelines and through contributions such as replication, resource sharing, mentorship, collaboration, clinical translation and public benefit. 

On rigor and reproducibility, the ADA said replication studies, preregistration, transparent reporting of methods and analyses, and publication of well-designed negative or null findings should be recognized as meaningful scientific contributions. The Association also called for dedicated incentives and funding opportunities for replication and reproducibility. 

The letter also calls on NIH to recognize contributions involving shared datasets, software, models and other research resources. The ADA cited the Human Oral Microbiome Database, developed and sustained at the ADA Forsyth Institute with support from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, as an example of the long-term scientific value of shared research resources. 

When considering research translation, the ADA said NIH should recognize both commercial and noncommercial forms of impact and account for differences in institutional scale, infrastructure and access to technology-transfer and commercialization resources. 

The ADA specifically cautioned against measures that could disadvantage smaller research institutions. 

“Small, independent research institutes such as the ADA Forsyth Institute demonstrate that relatively small institutions without an affiliated medical center can nevertheless achieve excellence across the continuum from foundational discovery to translational research and should not be disadvantaged by impact measures that implicitly favor the infrastructure of large academic health centers,” the ADA said. 

The Association also urged NIH to protect foundational, high-risk and high-reward research and assess its impact using criteria appropriate to the scientific question, stage of discovery and time needed for advances to emerge. 

“Foundational research should not be disadvantaged because it lacks an immediate clinical, commercial or economic application,” the ADA said. 

For public impact, the ADA recommended field-appropriate measures that could recognize contributions to clinical practice, health outcomes, public policy, accessibility, public trust and community benefit. Such measures should supplement rather than replace rigorous scientific assessment, according to the letter. 

Because nonbibliometric measures can be more difficult to standardize and verify, the ADA also called for clear definitions, documentation requirements and review rubrics to reduce inconsistent application across NIH institutes. 

The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs drafted and approved the comments, which were also reviewed by the ADA Forsyth Institute.