As sustainability becomes an increasing priority throughout global society, academic and research institutions are assessed on their contribution to relevant research publications. This study compares four methods of identifying research publications related to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13: climate action. The four methods, Elsevier, STRINGS, SIRIS, and Dimensions have each developed search strings with the help of subject matter experts which are then enhanced through distinct methods to produce a final set of publications. Our analysis showed that the methods produced comparable quantities of publications but with little overlap between them. We visualised some difference in topic focus between the methods and drew links with the search strategies used. Differences between publications retrieved are likely to come from subjective interpretation of the goals, keyword selection, operationalising search strategies, AI enhancements, and selection of bibliographic database. Each of the elements warrants deeper investigation to understand their role in identifying SDG-related research. Before choosing any method to assess the research contribution to SDGs, end users of SDG data should carefully consider their interpretation of the goal and determine which of the available methods produces the closest dataset. Meanwhile data providers might customise their methods for varying interpretations of the SDGs.
翻译:随着可持续性成为全球社会日益优先的事项,对学术和研究机构进行可持续性评估,以确定它们对相关研究出版物的贡献。本研究报告比较了四种确定与联合国可持续发展目标13有关的研究出版物的方法:气候行动。四种方法,即Elsevier、STrings、SIRIS和Dimes,在专题专家的帮助下,开发了搜索链,然后通过不同的方法制作最后一套出版物,这些搜索链得到加强。我们的分析表明,这些方法产生了相当数量的出版物,但两者之间几乎没有重叠。我们设想了在主题焦点上对所用方法有一些不同之处,并与使用的搜索战略建立了联系。检索到的出版物之间的差异可能来自对目标的主观解释、关键词选择、操作搜索战略、AI增强和文献数据库的选择。每种要素都需要更深入地调查,以了解它们在确定与SDG有关的研究方面的作用。在选择任何方法评估对SDGs的研究贡献之前,SDG数据的终端用户应该仔细考虑其对目标的解释,并确定哪些现有方法产生最接近的数据集。同时,数据提供者可能定制其不同解释SDGs的方法。