Guide: Narrative
It also allows for the defense and contextualization of the merits presented in accreditation processes and in the six-year research period evaluations conducted by university evaluation agencies, which consider the following dimensions of analysis:
Putting Metrics into Context
What are some key points in a narrative?
Positioning narrative involves contextualising an isolated numerical value so that its meaning can be understood in the context of the academic discipline and the year of publication. By incorporating the ranking or scale on which a quantitative metric is situated, it is possible to immediately interpret whether a result is optimal, critical or neutral.
For example, having five citations may be a lot or a few, depending on the publication date (whether it is relatively recent or not), the discipline to which the work belongs, and the type of document (article, review, book chapter, etc.).
The key metrics that help to build this positioning narrative are:
- Citation metrics: Percentiles or normalised indicators such as the FWCI (Field-Weighted Citation Impact) or the CNCI (Category Normalised Citation Impact), based on the number of citations received.
- Journal impact metrics: The quartile or percentile, depending on the impact factor of the journal in which the article has been published.
Contextual narrative involves detailing who mentions your publications and work, and where. Highlighting the section in which the citation appears — whether in the introduction, the methodology or the discussion — helps to illustrate the practical value and specific application of your research for other authors.
For example:
- A citation in the introduction: This indicates that your work serves as a theoretical basis or background.
- A citation in the methodology: This demonstrates that your methods or tools are being replicated or adapted.
- A citation in the discussion: This means that your results are being directly compared to validate, contrast or discuss new findings.
The citation network approach involves identifying which actors — whether individual authors, research groups or institutions — are citing your work. Highlighting the profiles of these actors helps to demonstrate the reach, prestige and international influence of your publication.
Analysing who cites you helps to highlight:
- Opinion leaders: Whether your work is being recognised by leading or high-impact researchers in your field.
- Prestigious institutions: Whether your publications are attracting the attention of top-tier universities or international organisations.
- Cross-disciplinary reach or collaborative networks: Whether you are making an impact beyond your local circle, opening the door to future strategic partnerships.
Audience analysis involves quantifying and characterising the target groups and users of your research, both within and outside academia. Analysing this factor enables you to demonstrate a publication’s social and media impact, as well as its knowledge transfer.
For example, it helps to assess and highlight:
- Media presence: The impact and influence of your work in the online press, scientific blogs or social media.
- Potential readers: The number of users who save or view your work in reference managers (such as Mendeley, which can be extracted from Altmetric).
- Geographical reach: Determining whether the interest generated by your research is local, national or international, and identifying the regions of the world where it is having the greatest impact.
A. Contribution
These metrics are based on counting the number of times a publication is cited in other scientific works, using comprehensive and, preferably, non-commercial databases. To obtain a more accurate picture and reduce bias, it is advisable to use indicators such as normalized citations per field and the number of citations excluding self-citations.
Sources: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions.
Below, you can find out how to obtain these metrics, along with examples of narrative:
Number of citations Normalized citations Percentile
Narrative example
Since its publication in 2023 in the journal Molecules, the article has accumulated 116 citations, demonstrating significant interest from the scientific community. Its Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) of 5.78 indicates that it has been cited more than five and a half times as often as the average for similar papers published in the same year, underlining its high impact within the field. Furthermore, the number of citations places it amongst the top 3 per cent of the most cited articles of 2023 in the field of chemistry, further reinforcing its relevance. [Accessed on 19 August 2025].
These metrics are based on counting the downloads, views or visits received by a publication in academic repositories, publishing platforms or scientific digital infrastructures. The total number alone is not enough: the data must be explained and put into context, including information on the countries, institutions or cities from which the content was accessed and the significance of those accesses.
Sources: editorial platforms, generic and institutional repositories.
At the IQS Library, we provide statistics on contributions deposited in the DAU Institutional Repository. If you require this information, please contact us by email.
Narrative example:
The article has achieved significant visibility within the DAU institutional repository. To date, it has accumulated 208 views and 35 downloads, demonstrating continued interest from the academic and professional community.
Geographically, visits originate mainly from the United States (58 visits), followed by Singapore (7), China (4) and Canada (3), confirming the article’s international reach and its circulation within specialised research circles.
Overall, the figures reflect a strong presence and significant impact within the repository, both in terms of the volume of visits and the diversity of readers’ origins. [Data extracted on 27/02/2026]
These metrics analyse the mentions that a piece of research receives outside the academic sphere, making it possible to measure its influence in cultural, educational, political or social contexts. They take into account references in non-academic documents — such as public policy reports — and evidence of use or impact. Mentions in the media and on specialist social media platforms also provide information, helping to identify which audiences have shown an interest or recognised its value.
Sources: Altmetric, PlumX, The Lens, Overton
Alternative metrics (Altmetric and PlumX)
Narrative example:
The article was mentioned in 32 news items across 29 media outlets, 1 blog and by 19 users on X (formerly Twitter), reaching a total of 204,862 followers, and was shared on 4 Facebook pages. Furthermore, it has received 59 academic citations (Dimensions) and has 121 readers on Mendeley, which reinforces its relevance both in the scientific community and in the wider public sphere.
Thanks to this attention, the article has achieved an Altmetric Attention Score of 228, placing it within the top 5 % of all scientific publications assessed by Altmetric. It stands out in particular for the level of attention it has received, ranking in the 98th percentile compared with publications of the same age and in the 96th percentile within its own journal and age group. This score reflects a high level of interest in both academic and non-academic circles. [Data retrieved on 27/02/2026]
B. Media for dissemination
These quantitative indicators assess the impact of a journal or publisher on the scientific community. They include metrics such as the impact factor and quartile ranking, which make it possible to measure their relevance within a particular discipline and compare their performance with that of other similar publications.
Sources: Journal Citation Reports (Web of Science), Citescore (Scopus), Scimago (Scopus), SJR (Scopus), Dialnet métricas
Narrative example:
The journal Molecules is an international, peer-reviewed scientific publication that stands out for its focus on chemistry and molecular biology, fields that are fundamental to the development of interdisciplinary research. According to the latest data from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Molecules has a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of 4.6, reflecting the high frequency with which its articles are cited and their relevance within the scientific community.
In terms of its ranking within the JCR’s subject categories, Molecules is in the Q2 quartile in both the BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY categories, indicating a solid performance compared with other journals in the same field. Specifically, it ranks in the 74.5th percentile (82nd out of 320 journals) in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and in the 68.4th percentile (76th out of 239 journals) in Multidisciplinary Chemistry. These rankings show that Molecules is above average in both areas, which reinforces its prestige as a publication platform.
These indicators assess the quality of the management and editorial processes of a journal or publishing house. They take into account aspects such as the acceptance rate, the type of peer review and the degree of internationalisation. Their validity is usually attested by certifications that guarantee compliance with standardised best publishing practices, such as the FECYT Quality Mark.
Sources: DOAJ, DOAB, Sello CEA-APQ, Sello de Calidad FECYT
Narrative example:
The article has been published in journal X, which has been awarded the FECYT quality seal and is indexed in the DOAJ, certifying that it publishes openly and subjects its content to independent, external peer review.
C. Open Science
Preference will be given to contributions made available via open access through institutional or subject-specific repositories, such as the DAU Institutional Repository of Universitat Ramon Llull, Zenodo or those included in RECOLECTA. Publication in diamond open access journals or platforms, which incur no costs for authors or readers, will also be taken into account. In all cases, deposit in a repository remains mandatory, regardless of the open access model used.
Do you need to submit an IQS-affiliated item to DAU? Please complete the form below or contact the IQS Library.
Narrative example:
The accepted version of the publication has been deposited in the DAU Institutional Repository of Universitat Ramon Llull, an open-access repository aggregated by RECOLECTA (http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/5536) under a CC BY-NC licence, thereby complying with the requirements of the call for papers whilst also contributing to open science.
It is recommended that research data, methods and software be published openly in recognised repositories that guarantee international standards and long-term preservation (e.g. Zenodo, GitHub or RECOLECTA repositories). It is essential to specify the repository used and its persistent identifier (DOI or other).
Information on usage metrics, the degree of compliance with the FAIR principles and examples of reuse by third parties may be included. The date of deposit should also be recorded to ensure that its dissemination can be tracked.
Narrative example:
The data collected and generated during the research have been processed in accordance with the FAIR principles and the guidelines set out in the Data Management Plan for Project X, drawn up using the X tool. Furthermore, they have been deposited in CORA. Research Data Repository (https://doi.org/10.34810/data526) under the CC BY-NC 4.0 licence. The dataset has received 1,798 views and a total of 496 downloads. [Data extracted on 27/02/2026]
This section assesses knowledge generation carried out in collaboration with, and with the active involvement of, the citizenship throughout all or part of the research process (citizen science, participatory science or community science). It also evaluates dialogue and co-creation with other social systems and actors, such as public administrations, local communities, groups, bodies or third-sector organisations.
To support this narrative, it is recommended that SciStarter be used as a reference source and registration platform to certify the scope of the project.
Narrative example:
This contribution is the result of a participatory science process carried out in direct collaboration with a local community group. Rather than following a traditional approach, the research was designed through co-creation sessions with the Sarriá Neighbourhood Association, actively involving its members in the discussion phase and in the collection of testimonies and data on [subject of the study].