Introduction
The Antarctic Treaty states that activities below 60°S are for peaceful and scientific purposes (Antarctic Treaty Preamble and Article I). Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), of which Australia is one, make substantial contributions to Antarctic science. Such contributions can help shape important policy decisions in both international and domestic contexts in Antarctica (McGee et al. Reference McGee, Edmiston, Haward, McGee, Edmiston and Haward2022, p. 173). For example, Antarctic science conducted by a national Antarctic programme (NAP), such as research highlighting the risks and impacts of stations in ice-free areas, can help inform ATCP decisions on the development of Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations for new or existing stations under the Environmental Protocol (Annex I, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty). This relationship between Antarctic science and policies that manage the region highlights the benefit of science to inform and improve policy outcomes.
Science is one input that can help address social, economic and environmental challenges (Williams Reference Williams2020). Publicly funded science is assumed to be more effective when it has explicit pathways into policy, even though such pathways are not always straightforward (Maas et al. Reference Maas, Paulwelussen and Turnhout2022). One solution to identify and improve science-to-policy pathways is to use methods that look at research impact (e.g. Boaz et al. Reference Boaz, Fitzpatrick and Shaw2009, Newson et al. Reference Newson, Rychetnik, King and Bauman2018).
‘Research impact’ is a term used to describe how scientific knowledge has been applied to benefit society (Reed Reference Reed2025, pp. 3–17). Evaluating research impact enables governments and research institutions to monitor performance, improve accountability, inform funding decisions and develop new avenues to maximize research impact (Penfield et al. Reference Penfield, Baker, Scoble and Wykes2014, Hinrichs-Krapels & Grant Reference Hinrichs-Krapels and Grant2016). It is common for institutions to assess research excellence using traditional citation metrics (e.g. h-indexes, journal impact factors). Occasionally, small-scale impact case studies are used; however, these provide only a limited picture of scientific influence (Penfield et al. Reference Penfield, Baker, Scoble and Wykes2014).
Another difficulty in evaluating research impact is that there can be vastly different approaches to defining impact (Penfield et al. Reference Penfield, Baker, Scoble and Wykes2014, Doyle Reference Doyle2018). For example, definitions can be broad, such as ‘marked effect or influence’, or specific, such as ‘… benefit to economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia’ (Penfield et al. Reference Penfield, Baker, Scoble and Wykes2014). Citation-tracking methods are useful for obtaining metrics on the visibility of science but are unable to capture the broader contextual pathways by which research influences policy decisions. Similarly, the complex connections between science and policy mean that more nuanced methods for evaluating research impact are necessary to ensure aspects of complexities are not overlooked (Oliver & Boaz Reference Oliver and Boaz2019, Maas et al. Reference Maas, Paulwelussen and Turnhout2022). This demonstrates that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method is unsuitable across disciplines (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. Reference Greenhalgh, Raftery, Hanney and Glover2016, Maas et al. Reference Maas, Ferré, Martin-Ortega, Blanche, Lawford-Rolfe and Dallimer2021).
Research on the influence of Antarctic science tends to focus on science-to-policy pathways at international scales (e.g. Gardiner et al. Reference Gardiner, Gilbert and Liggett2023). Studies examining the impact of Antarctic science on domestic policy appear to be non-existent. This gap contrasts with the aspirations of nations such as Australia, which considers itself a leader in Antarctic science, to demonstrate the broader and societal value of public investment in Antarctic activities (Australian Government 2022, 2024).
The Australian Commonwealth government uses public funds to invest in various activities to maintain its Antarctic Treaty obligations (Australian Government 2024). Australia has strategic interests as both a claimant state (Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT)) and as an ATCP. Australia also has strong strategic and scientific interests in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, with explicit strategic goals including ‘conducting “world-class” scientific research consistent with national priorities’ (Australian Government 2022, p. 7). While Australia’s Antarctic engagement is often framed through its involvement in the Antarctic Treaty System, there is limited visibility regarding how the Commonwealth translates its Antarctic science into tangible influence on domestic policy outcomes to deliver social benefits.
East Antarctic ice cores have been a large and ongoing component of this ‘world-class’ science under the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP; Australian Government 2022, p. 15, Long et al. Reference Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen2024). International collaborations with Australian ice core scientists, defined here as Australia-based government and academic researchers, have led to an extensive list of scientific publications focusing on three key themes: stable-water isotopes, impurities and greenhouse gases (Long et al. Reference Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen2024).
Stable-water isotopes are related to oxygen atoms frozen as water (H2O) and are used for global temperature reconstructions (EPICA Community Members 2006). Impurities include volcanic and solar activity, nuclear waste, air pollution, biological outputs and sea salts (ACE CRC 2015). Greenhouse gases are atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide and methane (Rubino et al. Reference Rubino, Etheridge, Thornton, Howden, Allison and Francey2019). All ice core research themes reflect changes in the Earth’s climate over long time scales (ACE CRC 2015) and therefore have relevance well beyond the poles.
Demonstrations of research impact are becoming critical elements of scientific outcomes and funding (e.g. Australian Government 2022). Therefore, methods to evaluate how Commonwealth-supported Antarctic activities inform domestic policies are becoming increasingly important. We build on existing citation-tracking methods (e.g. Bornmann et al. Reference Bornmann, Haunschild and Marx2016, Newson et al. Reference Newson, Rychetnik, King and Bauman2018, Dorta-González et al. Reference Dorta-González, Rodríguez-Caro and Dorta- González2024) to identify links between Australian-led Antarctic science and the policy domain. We use AAP East Antarctic ice core publications to test a mixed-method approach that measures and contextualizes research impact in a novel way.
Methods
This study uses mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) to gain insight into the utility of ice core publications within international and domestic policy domains. The terms used in this study are defined in Table I, and the methodology’s framework is outlined in Fig. 1. The quantitative methods were the use of linear citation tracking (e.g. Newson et al. Reference Newson, Rychetnik, King and Bauman2018) and the consolidation of scientific publications, policies and policy-related documents (e.g. Long et al. Reference Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen2024). This allowed us to assess the visibility of ice core publications in policy domains. The qualitative approach of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz Reference Charmaz2014, Aslipour & Zargar Reference Aslipour and Zargar2022) was employed to categorize ice core research themes and identify the specific ways they were being utilized within policies. This helped contextualize which ice core publications were being used and for what purpose, allowing us to develop a new ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum contextualizing the research citation. Limitations associated with using traditional citation metrics to measure research impact apply here (e.g. value assigned to contributions over attributions; Penfield et al. Reference Penfield, Baker, Scoble and Wykes2014, Cao et al. Reference Cao, Zhang, Wang, Li and Sivertsen2025), but our mixed-method approach helps address an aspect of this (e.g. by contextualizing attributions) and is a crucial step towards understanding where and how publicly funded Antarctic science influences domestic policy.
Definitions of the terms used in this study.
Methodology framework. The methodology’s framework outlines the software tools used to consolidate and manage the data. The figure also indicates where qualitative interpretation was included to inform the ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum. A total of 266 Australian-authored and/or -funded East Antarctic ice core publications were searched using the Overton and Altmetric software tools. Advanced Google Search helped obtain documents from additional domestic sources not available through Overton or Altmetric. All policy and policy-related documents were analysed and categorized based on the discussion of research themes (i.e. ‘Greenhouse Gases’) and in what context (i.e. ‘Integrating’) the citation was utilized. All documents, ice core publications and categories were managed using Airtable software as a repository. AAP = Australian Antarctic Program; AAT = Australian Antarctic Territory.
Ice core publications
Australian-authored and/or -funded AAP scientific publications that used ice cores collected within the AAT were used to assess our mixed-method approach to measuring research impact. Ice core publications from Long et al. (Reference Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen2024) were identified using metadata software (e.g. Harzing’s Publish or Perish, Web of Science), complemented by targeted searches (e.g. Trove, Australian Antarctic Division Data Centre) and iterative citation searches across research articles to consolidate a list of publications from 1972 to 2022. Following the Long et al. (Reference Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen2024) publication consolidation method, we included an additional 27 publications, resulting in 266 Australian-authored and/or -funded East Antarctic ice core publications (see Supplementary Material).
Minor Australian author/funding contributions were considered to meet our criteria for Australian ice core publications. This means that publications with greater international author/funding contributions are present in the publications list (e.g. PAGES 2K Consortium 2013). We recognize that minor levels of participation do not necessarily reflect international contributions and would like to acknowledge the extensive work by other ice core programmes in the publications list.
Document consolidation
Altmetric and Overton are considered leading software databases for tracking scientific citations in policy and policy-related documents - referred to hereon together as ‘documents’ (Dorta-González et al. Reference Dorta-González, Rodríguez-Caro and Dorta- González2024). Note that policy-related documents were also considered to capture nuanced pathways related to research impact (e.g. media) and to test the methodology. To investigate what documents might not be included in both, we created our own custom database that captured 28 077 documents using Advanced Google Search to trawl through website domains.
The following key words were used to target potential documents held by a website domain that might cite ice core publications: ‘ice cores’, ‘ice core’, ‘East Antarctic ice core’, ‘palaeoclimate’ or ‘paleoclimate’. The key words were searched both individually and as a search string to ensure that all documents available on website domains were found.
Multiple PDF documents returned through Advanced Google Search were downloaded using the Google Chrome extension ‘Batch Link Downloader’. In instances where a webpage returned a key word but no PDF was available, the webpage itself was saved as a PDF. Similarly, if a website domain was considered significant in the Antarctic space, such as the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website (ATS n.d.), all of the available documents were downloaded regardless of whether they contained key words, ensuring our study captured the full range of ice core publications cited in potential documents.
Citation tracking
We acknowledge that citation-tracking methods rely on documents to cite scientific publications in a traditional academic sense. Many documents, particularly policies, do not cite correctly, and sometimes citations are absent (e.g. Newson et al. Reference Newson, Rychetnik, King and Bauman2018, Mahfouz et al. Reference Mahfouz, Capra and Mulgan2024). All 266 ice core publications were individually searched through Altmetric, Overton and our custom database. Our custom database required the use of Adobe Pro’s indexing tool to enable searching scientific publications through folders containing documents retrieved from Advanced Google searches. The indexing tool was used to individually search the digital object identifier, publication title and unique Australian ice core names (e.g. DSS97, DSS1617 and MBS1718) associated with each of the 266 ice core publications. This ensured that all documents were searched comprehensively.
Airtable was used as the repository to manage citation hits identified in documents obtained from Altmetric, Overton and our custom database. The Airtable repository assisted in managing the identified links and categorization of information associated with ice core publications, documents and databases.
Categorization of documents
Each document with citations was manually reviewed. The reading focused on the document’s title, organization, affiliated international or domestic forum (including whether it was Commonwealth, State or Local - see Supplementary Material), abstract or executive summary of the document’s purpose and the page number(s) associated with scientific citation(s). This information was managed within our Airtable repository.
The documents were initially categorized into domestic and international domains. The domains were then separated into forum themes (e.g. intergovernmental, intra-governmental, non-governmental organization (NGO), local government or consultant). These were then further categorized into institutional forums (e.g. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), World Meteorological Organization (WMO) or the New South Wales (NSW) Government). Organizing the information from these forums enabled us to take a quantitative approach to categorizing the documents. If applicable, the document was allocated to more than one forum.
Qualitative identification of East Antarctic ice core research themes (Table II) was developed using constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz Reference Charmaz2014, Aslipour & Zargar Reference Aslipour and Zargar2022). Constructivist grounded theory allowed us to derive our initial themes by reading and re-reading documents. To ensure consistency across a variety of international and domestic contexts, initial themes were regularly re-examined and redefined, with ice core publications underpinning our definitions. To maintain consistency, the themes were finalized to reflect common ice core research themes used across multiple documents. This ensured accuracy of definitions and allowed documents to be allocated to more than one research theme.
Ice core research themes.
Contextual categories: ‘Active-Passive’
Ice core publications were utilized across documents for different purposes, with engagement ranging from superficial to in-depth. Qualitative categorization of contextual themes allowed us to evaluate how science has been used and interpreted to inform or influence individual documents across different international and domestic domains.
The contextual themes (Table III) were also developed using constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz Reference Charmaz2014) and derived by re-reading and reviewing the reoccurring contexts across the 284 documents. Definitions of contextual themes were refined iteratively to ensure consistent interpretations and reflected the document’s intention. We acknowledge that our backgrounds can influence how our definitions were derived for both the research (Table II) and contextual (Table III) themes. However, referring to our well-defined definitions and ensuring a common understanding of terminology within the research team ensured that our interpretations remained consistent across documents.
Contextual themes.
The contextual themes (‘Integration’ to ‘Reporting’) reflect an Active-Passive spectrum based on how different documents utilize ice core research themes. The documents were also allocated to more than one contextual theme where applicable. The ‘Active’ end, associated with measurable change, indicates that the research was used to achieve an outcome with real-world applications, whereas the ‘Passive’ end demonstrates an awareness of contemporary research but with limited engagement. While both ends of the spectrum provide insights on the utility of ice core publications, we argue that incorporating the ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum is a critical tool when attributing research impact to science programmes.
Results
Altmetric, Overton and our custom database identified 284 policy and policy-related documents (Table IV & Supplementary Material) citing a total of 123 out of the 266 Australian-authored and/or -funded East Antarctic ice core publications. International forums accounted for 73% of the documents, while domestic forums accounted for 27%. Most documents were annual, interim, assessment or technical reports, with additional working, strategy and information papers presented at or by large international forums such as the ATCM, WMO or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A small number of documents included workshop summaries and strategic planning documents.
Overview of documents contained in the Airtable repository.
Ice core publications cited in documents were mostly used for ‘Advice’ (Fig. 2). The themes ‘Technical’ and ‘Justification’ were identified in similar numbers across the documents, followed by ‘Reporting’. ‘Integration’, considered here as the most ‘Active’ use, occurred only in domestic documents. Many documents had overlapping contextual themes, with the most common pairings being ‘Advice’ and ‘Technical’ or ‘Advice’ and ‘Justification’.
Contextual themes utilized across international and domestic documents. This bar chart shows the difference in contextual themes between international and domestic domains. The percentages above each bar refer to the percentage of documents that were categorized as either international (red) or domestic (blue). Count (y-axis) reflects the number of documents that mentioned a contextual theme. Where applicable, documents were categorized as having more than one contextual theme. This is because more than one ice core publication was cited within an individual document.
The primary ice core research themes discussed were ‘Greenhouse Gases’, ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Antarctica’ (Fig. 3). Additional research themes relating to ‘Southern Hemisphere’, ‘Water’ and ‘Sea-Ice Extent’ were similarly discussed, followed by ‘Dust’, ‘Fertilizer’, ‘Ozone’, ‘Solar Activity’, ‘Heavy Metals’ and ‘Volcanic Activity’. There was a difference in the utilization of research themes between international and domestic documents. Internationally, ‘Antarctica’ and ‘Sea-Ice Extent’ were quite common, whereas domestically the most common were ‘Southern Hemisphere’ and ‘Water’.
Ice core research themes utilized within international and domestic documents. This bar chart shows the different research themes between the international and domestic domains. The percentages above each bar refer to the percentage of documents that were categorized as either international (red) or domestic (blue). Count (y-axis) reflects the number of documents that mentioned a research theme. Documents were often categorized with more than one research theme as multiple ice core publications were utilized within an individual document.
Ice core publications and documents were plotted against each other with their publication year (Fig. 4). Several peaks were identified (1998, 2005–2009, 2012–2017 and 2019–2022), and these align with major international report releases ahead of diplomatic climate events such as the Third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto (COP3), the Copenhagen Summit (COP15), the Paris Conference (COP21) and IPCC assessments. Note that 9% of IPCC citations were self-cited by contributing IPCC authors.
Ice core publications and international and domestic documents (1968–2024). This bar chart shows the number of ice core publications (orange) and policy-related documents (green) published per year, with peaks in ice core publications occurring ca. 1998, 2002, 2004, 2012–2017 and 2019–2022. These peaks align with documents resulting from major international report releases, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments, ahead of international diplomacy events, such as the Paris Agreement in 2023.
International documents
International documents (73%) were commonly reports released by large intergovernmental forums such as the IPCC, WMO, the United Nations or the European Union (Fig. 5). Intergovernmental documents were annual reports, assessments and measures using ice core publications for ‘Advice’ purposes on global climate and Antarctic matters. For example, the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010 report on global ozone implications cited Australian-led Law Dome greenhouse gas records from Sturrock et al. (Reference Sturrock, Etheridge, Trudinger, Fraser and Smith2002) and Trudinger et al. (Reference Trudinger, Etheridge, Sturrock, Fraser, Krummel and McCulloch2004) for advising purposes around greenhouse gas emissions (WMO 2010, pp. 1.15, 1.26, 1.69).
International document separation into forums and contextual themes. This figure shows the different forums (e.g. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM)) that have authored documents related to international interests and collaborations. Each forum was then categorized into one or multiple contextual themes to reflect the utility of the citation of an ice core publication. Note that institutions have been grouped for simplicity; for example, ‘Australia’ includes a document authored by an Australian government department, and that document contribution was included or used for ‘Intergovernmental’ purposes (e.g. an ATCM submission). ASOC = Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition; CCAC = Climate and Clean Air Coalition; CCAMLR = Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; CCSBT = Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna; CFS = Committee on Food Security; COMNAP = Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs; EU = European Union; GCOS = Global Climate Observing System; IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency; ICSU = International Council for Scientific Unions; IMEO = International Methane Emissions Observatory; IOC = Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPICS = International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences; ITF = International Transport Forum; IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; SCAR = Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research; SCOR = Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research; SOOS = Southern Ocean Overserving System; UN = United Nations; WBG = World Bank Group, WMO = World Meteorological Organization; WWF = World Wildlife Fund.
The top three countries of institutions utilizing ice core publications outside Australia were the USA, Norway and Canada, with minor use by the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Japan and Spain. Intra-nationally, ice core publications were used for ‘Advice’ in reports on the status of the changing global and Antarctic environment from ‘Greenhouse Gas’ emissions that contribute to ‘Climate Change’.
Overton’s coverage bias towards the USA and Canada (Pinheiro et al. Reference Pinheiro, Vignola-Gagné and Campbell2021) may have led to a greater representation of intra-national utilization by these nations. For example, the US Geological Survey cited Pearman et al. (Reference Pearman, Etheridge, de Silva and Fraser1986) (see Howell Reference Howell, Howell, Wiese, Fanelli, Zink and Cole1998, p. 472); the Department of Health and Human Services cited Hong et al. (Reference Hong, Boutron, Edwards and Morgan1998) (see ATSDR 2005, p. 253); a roadmap for climate mitigation cited Rubino et al. (Reference Rubino, Etheridge, Thornton, Howden, Allison and Francey2019) (see Possolo & Meija Reference Possolo and Meija2022, p. 36); and MacFarling Meure et al. (Reference MacFarling Meure, Etheridge, Trudinger, Steele, Langenfelds and van Ommen2006) was cited in a carbon sink report (CCA 2022, p. 18). The utilization of these publications was consistently for ‘Advice’ on global matters.
NGO documents were commonly working or information papers from Observer or Expert contributors. Papers by Antarctic-related NGOs, such as the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), were commonly summaries of NAP activities and ‘Reporting’ of ice core publications. Non-Antarctic NGO documents were summaries of ‘Climate Change’ and covered broader global issues related to a warming climate. Overlaps of NGO documents were observed because the quantitative method captured the document through both the authoring NGO web domain and the intergovernmental forum to which they were submitted.
Policy-related documents, including workshop and conference summaries or proceedings, were collected by Altmetric, Overton and our custom database. These documents often used ‘Reporting’ to reflect established or developing collaborative partnerships between like-minded researchers. The relationships between the International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences (IPICS 2016) and the International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS-12 2011) are examples.
Domestic documents
Domestic documents (27%) were often co-authored by Australian government departments, with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) being key authors (Fig. 6). Domestic documents drew on ice core publications for ‘Advice’ and ‘Technical’ uses in relation to ‘Greenhouse Gases’ and the ‘Southern Hemisphere’.
Domestic document separation into forums and contextual themes. This figure indicates the different domestic forums (e.g. local council) and the contextual themes associated with the utilization of ice core publications across the three levels of Australian governance (PEO 2022) and Australian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). AAD = Australian Antarctic Division; ANSTO = Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; BoM = Bureau of Meteorology; CSIRO = Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Cth = Commonwealth; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; QLD = Queensland; SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia.
Documents related to state or territory interests, co-authored by Australian government departments, universities and consulting companies, used ice core publications for the purpose of ‘Advice’ and ‘Integration’ in relation to the ‘Southern Hemisphere’ and ‘Water’. State or territory documents included reports such as the State of the Climate and emission assessments, submissions to Senate or Joint inquiries and a gas exploration appraisal. The states and territories identified as utilizing ice core science were NSW, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
A minor number of documents were authored by NGOs, which always used ice core publications for the purpose of providing ‘Advice’ on ‘Greenhouse Gases’ and ‘Climate Change’. Consultants also always used ice core publications for ‘Advice’ purposes when discussing ‘Greenhouse Gases’. However, ‘Water’ was used for the purposes of ‘Integration’ and ‘Technical’ in relation to reviews and strategies for state rainfall catchments.
Discussion
The mixed methods employed by this study allowed us to identify how East Antarctic ice core publications have been utilized within international and domestic policy domains, including their engagement with ice core research themes. The contextual themes of how ice core publications are utilized proved to be a valuable addition for attributing research impact when interpreting citation frequency. Applying the model of an ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum revealed where ice core publications are used meaningfully versus where they are perfunctorily referenced. This demonstrated how easy it can be to overlook the context when evaluating research impact. Our approach provides deeper insights into how policymakers frame, interpret and leverage Antarctic science within their forums. The findings also demonstrate that custom-built databases of policy and policy-related documents are necessary to address domestic document gaps associated with Altmetric and Overton (Table IV).
Altmetric was the least comprehensive tool for tracking citations, retrieving only 19 unique documents. Altmetric also excludes policy documents from the Australian Policy Observatory (APO). This was because the APO was said to contain too many science publications that were being ‘attributed as policy mentions’ (Condon Reference Condon2021) - in other words, they were sitting on the ‘Passive’ end of the spectrum and skewing results. While Overton was better at tracking citations and had a broader range of policy and policy-related documents (Overton 2024), it still had limitations. For example, Overton mostly provided scientific assessments or advisory reports rather than legislative or executive documents. Overton also showed a coverage bias towards the USA and Canada, aligning with similar findings in other studies (e.g. Pinheiro et al. Reference Pinheiro, Vignola-Gagné and Campbell2021). Overton also excluded Antarctic Treaty Secretariat documents (i.e. ATCM documents), as these were uploaded to the Secretariat website in Word document format rather than PDF format. This means that anything that is not on the internet as a PDF is not captured, dramatically limiting Overton’s coverage.
Our custom database rectified the exclusion of domestic documents by Altmetric and Overton by expanding the range of domestic data. This helped identify pathways between Antarctic science and domestic policy, revealing a greater range of ‘Active’ applications than were previously visible. This highlights how institutions relying on Altmetric and Overton to measure their research impact are excluding domestic data. The most comprehensive method for attributing research impact was combining our custom database with Altmetric and Overton results. We acknowledge that our custom database also has limitations, such as its own Australian bias; however, we argue that the swathe of cross-referenced documents gives a reasonable indication, or a baseline, of where Australian East Antarctic ice core publications have been cited in the non-scientific literature.
‘Active-Passive’ spectrum
The ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum is a valuable addition that complements citation-tracking methodologies. The spectrum helps demonstrate that citation frequency does not always indicate research impact. For example, we found that documents cited the same publication multiple times, inflating the perceived impact. By adopting the model of a spectrum, we moved beyond citation counts to examine how publications were used, not just how often. For instance, the category ‘Advice’, representing the most ‘Passive’ use of a publication, was overwhelmingly used across international and domestic domains. This suggests that publications with perceived visibility may not be informing decision-making processes.
In ATCM documents, the repeated use of an ice core publication (Goodwin et al. Reference Goodwin1993) in ‘Supporting Documentation’ was used passively across regular revisions of management plans related to Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs; ATS 2013, p. 88, 219). ASPAs are reviewed every 5 years and often have minor or no changes (Hughes et al. Reference Hughes, Constable, Frenot, López-Martínez, McIvor and Njåstad2018). The repetition of Goodwin et al. (Reference Goodwin1993) through many reviews reflects the continuation of the ASPA status. We view this as acceptable in analysing the uptake and use of science for management processes. However, it highlights how citation frequency can overstate research impact, as repeated references may reflect procedural continuity and not ‘Active’ influence.
Another example of the ‘Passive’ utilization of ice core publications is found in IPCC documents. Pollitt et al. (Reference Pollitt, Mercure, Barker, Salas and Scrieciu2024) argues that the IPCC - widely regarded as an independent expert body - does not have direct impact on policymaking, except to support arguments for climate action. We found that ice core research themes (e.g. ‘Greenhouse Gases’) were consistently used in the ‘Advice’ sections of IPCC reports and assessments. We were less certain about the impact that IPCC-cited ice core publications have on the ongoing influence of national climate action policies. This is particularly the case when the IPCC’s role is to inform wider international agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This highlights a wider gap between the advisory use of Antarctic science in intergovernmental forums and the ability to track its impact on international or domestic policy outcomes.
The contextual use of ‘Advice’ alongside ‘Climate Change’ aligns with Bornmann et al. (Reference Bornmann, Haunschild, Boyack, Marx and Minx2022), who noted that intergovernmental organizations and NGOs commonly discuss their considerations for addressing global issues ahead of major international climate diplomacy events. For example, the PAGES 2K Consortium (2013) aligns with intergovernmental document releases (e.g. IPCC 2021, pp. 161, 349). However, intra-national documents are less likely to discuss ‘Climate Change’ in the same manner and may reflect national hesitancy in addressing complex climate change issues (Bornmann et al. Reference Bornmann, Haunschild, Boyack, Marx and Minx2022). This suggests that while Antarctic science contributes to global discussions on climate change, its measurable influence on domestic policies remains difficult to trace.
NGOs reflect views from various sources (e.g. community-based, industry-based, independent organization-based) depending on their international organizational strategies. For example, NGOs can appear as Observers in the ATCM through SCAR and the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs or as Expert contributors, such as the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, and intergovernmental organizations such as the IPCC, WMO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP; Hughes et al. Reference Hughes, Constable, Frenot, López-Martínez, McIvor and Njåstad2018). Antarctic-related NGOs citing ice core publications as part of large co-authorship research papers (e.g. Kennicutt II et al. Reference Kennicutt II, Kim and Rogan-Finnemore2016) used them for ‘Advice’ or ‘Reporting’ to reflect the range of research themes undertaken by Antarctic scientific activities. Such consolidations of Antarctic science can be viewed as key pathways for making complex information more palatable to policymakers and more likely to inform decision-making (Gardiner et al. Reference Gardiner, Liggett, Gilbert and Cvitanovic2024). This highlights how collaborative networks between NGOs and the scientific community can help amplify the visibility and accessibility of Antarctic science. However, it is important to be mindful that this visibility by NGOs is often ‘Passive’ when attributing research impact.
Bornmann et al. (Reference Bornmann, Haunschild, Boyack, Marx and Minx2022) also found that the lag between climate-related science and policy uptake averaged 5.8 years. In this study, we found almost no lag between ice core publications and uptake into documents. However, this lack of lag was not because the research had an immediate ‘impact’, but because domestic institutions, such as the AAD, presented ‘Reporting’ contributions (e.g. publication outputs) as part of interim or annual reports, which were then used in ATCM supporting documents. Since ‘Reporting’ is considered the most ‘Passive’ use of a publication, we argue that institutions counting it as a research impact may make assessments that are possibly misleading.
Australia has strategic interests in ice core publications when compared to the international domain (Figs 2 & 3). One reason for this is the AAT’s location within East Antarctica, but this is also because ice cores drilled in this region can have practical domestic applications (e.g. Australian hydroclimate reconstructions). While the Commonwealth utilized ice core publications for ‘Advice’ purposes, the state and territory use of publications diverged to ‘Integration’ to address their separate priorities and interests. For example, ‘Southern Hemisphere’ and ‘Water’ research themes were ‘Active’ applications by specific domestic institutions to purposefully address water security challenges (e.g. NSW DPIE 2021, pp. 13, 14, Alluvium 2023, pp. 3–19). The methodology’s ability to identify ‘Integration’ - the most active use in policy - highlights potential ongoing and future pathways for ice cores to influence the domestic policy domain.
By not applying an ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum contextualizing citation-tracking methods or results from Altmetric and Overton when using them to make research impact assessments, institutions risk misrepresenting (overstating or understating) scientific influence in international and domestic domains. The success of the ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum also lies in its flexibility to derive new contextual themes from documents. This would allow other Antarctic and non-Antarctic research domains to add or redefine contextual themes capturing more context-specific research impact.
Domestic research impact
In Australia, research impact is one of the pillars for assessing the quality of science by the Australian Research Council (ARC) and other research grant entities (ARC 2026). Australian Antarctic science conducted under the AAP may not always align with the ARC’s definition of impact (Table I), even though outputs from AAP-supported scientific activities are increasingly expected to align with national priorities. Activities supporting Antarctic national priorities are government-supported and -controlled (Australian Government 2022). Current assessments of how these scientific activities align can be viewed in the annual federal government Portfolio Budget Statements (PBSs). PBSs outline key expenditures and performance outcomes for each department (e.g. AAD) managing Australian Antarctic activities (Australian Government 2024).
The PBS outcomes state that a department should ‘[a]dvance Australia’s environmental, scientific, strategic and economic interests in the Antarctic region by protecting, researching and administering the region, including through international engagement’ (Australian Government 2024, p. 7). One of the performance measures attached to this outcome is to ‘deliver priority Antarctic science that advances Australia’s interests’, with the expected results (or tangible measures) being ‘publish 75 peer-reviewed journal articles per year’ (Australian Government 2024, p. 69). We argue that this is not a measure of research impact because it does not capture whether the publication has informed policy or had broader societal benefits.
Measuring research impact is also important to domestic non-governmental institutions, such as Australian universities, which receive public funding and are assessed against the ARC Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA). ERA primarily uses traditional citation metrics and bibliometric analyses to focus on publication rates, journal impact factors and discipline- or research theme-specific performance (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Crookes and Crookes2013). Again, we argue that traditional citation metrics are do not represent a method for assessing research impact because they do not contextualize the influence of publications beyond academic domains (e.g. universities). These metrics, however, do measure matters such as research ‘excellence’ and institutional prestige in rankings, and so they remain important for other aspects of assessing university performance.
The different contextual uses within domestic documents show a divergence in the use of East Antarctic ice core publications across Australian governance levels (Table V). For example, the Commonwealth, which is responsible for enacting laws that support national interests and legally implementing obligations agreed to under international agreements (Cresswell et al. Reference Cresswell, Janke and Johnston2021, pp.128–136), used ‘Advice’ in reports to communicate the need to adapt, monitor and plan for climate change (e.g. Trudinger et al. Reference Trudinger, Enting, Rayner, Etheridge, Buizert and Rubino2013, in CAWCR 2012, p. 47). Here, the Commonwealth’s use of ‘Advice’ is similar to how large intergovernmental forums (e.g. IPCC) also use ice core publications to inform decision-makers. However, it remains uncertain how publications cited for ‘Advice’ purposes further influence State, Territory or local levels.
Australian contextual uses across the different levels of governance.
ACCSP = Australian Climate Change Science Program; IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; NSW = New South Wales.
At the State and Territory level, several institutions (e.g. the NSW State Government) were more meaningfully engaging with ice core publications through ‘Integration’ or making ‘Technical’ applications of ice core data to address water security challenges in Australia. The results also show that consultant work is more commonplace in Australia than internationally and represents a key domestic forum that utilizes ice core publications purposefully for ‘Integration’ and ‘Technical’ applications (e.g. Alluvium 2019). Several consultant documents were published between 2017 and 2021 that may reflect interest in ice core insights following the Tinderbox Drought (2017–2019; Devanand et al. Reference Devanand, Falster, Gillett, Hobeichi, Holgate and Jin2024).
NSW (2021) noted that the Tinderbox Drought caused the state government to reassess how it models the variability of climate extremes. This integration of ice core data into their models (NSW DPIE 2021, p. 83) after the Tinderbox Drought may suggest that policymakers are less likely to use science communicated for ‘Advice’ purposes and more likely to consider it when extreme events challenge current approaches. Additional qualitative insights are needed to investigate the barriers that limit policymakers’ utilization of ice core publications and to provide further insights into the functionality of this specific science-to-policy interface.
A local council document by the Central Coast Council (CCC) in NSW included ice core insights to contextualize the extent of natural climate extremes (CCC 2023, pp. 30–32). This is the first evidence that insights from ice cores have been incorporated into local-level governance, and no other examples were found. The uptake of ice core data in this instance was driven by the NSW State Government’s change to the framework for managing water resources amid climate extremes (NSW DPIE 2021, p. 83). This demonstrates that changes in decision-making practices at a state government level can affect decisions at local levels, suggesting there are multiple pathways for getting ice core data into policy.
Using citation tracking to evaluate research impact from the utilization of a scientific publication within international forums (e.g. IPCC) that goes on to influence changes to national policies is difficult (Pollitt et al. Reference Pollitt, Mercure, Barker, Salas and Scrieciu2024). Our employment of mixed methods demonstrates how citation tracking within domestic domains can be used to capture and reflect the state governmental influence on local council policy changes. However, all citations in both international and domestic documents rely on documents citing research in the traditional sense.
Ongoing investigations into the existing Antarctic ice core science-to-Australian water policy pathway could be further developed to guide future Australian ice core projects. Collaborations with domestic institutions to co-produce knowledge or future research projects could strategically target ice core sites that generate data directly supporting efforts to address national water security priorities (ACS 2025). This demonstrates the value of the ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum in identifying context-specific science-to-policy pathways and in identifying Antarctic science projects that may have been overlooked by traditional citation metrics.
Investigating how knowledge is exchanged between researchers and policymakers through self-citations in policy-related documents is worth further exploration. This is because it can help assess whether including scientists as co-authors is an effective strategy for shaping policy outcomes. We found that ice core scientists self-cited their research when appearing as co-authors on several domestic policy-related documents (e.g. Vance et al. Reference Vance, Roberts, Plummer, Kiem and van Ommen2015, in Alluvium 2023, pp. 5, 9, 32, 45). This suggests that encouraging researchers to cite grey literature, such as reviews, may offer scientists a more direct pathway to influence domestic policy. However, this may or may not be indicative of research impact, as it suggests that policymakers may not engage directly with publications, but instead rely on consultants to provide evidence-based contributions to policy.
Policymakers may also prioritize highly cited scientific publications or consider journal impact factors rather than implementing changes based on relevant publications (Taşkın et al. Reference Taşkin, Doğan, Kulczycki and Zuccala2021, Mahfouz et al. Reference Mahfouz, Capra and Mulgan2024). Further understanding of how policymakers interact with ice core publications may help us to understand how Antarctic science can become embedded in domestic policies. This may assist decision-makers in improving areas related to Australia’s future climate risks, such as sea-level rise, drought, flooding and bushfire extremes. While our study uses ice core publications as an example, identifying how other Antarctic science disciplines influence domestic policies could highlight Antarctic activities that support both national and societal benefits while reinforcing geopolitical objectives (e.g. scientific activities) in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean region.
Conclusion
The mixed-methods approach (e.g. engaging citation tracking alongside an ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum analysis) adds a detailed perspective when evaluating the research impact of Antarctic science. By incorporating the ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum into the analysis of citation counts, we transform the widely accessible but less nuanced traditional citation metrics into a less blunt evaluation tool. We captured how different international and domestic policy domains use and interpret East Antarctic ice core publications when informing decision-making processes, adding nuance to our understanding of which ice core research themes have had more meaningful research impact.
To date, East Antarctic ice core publications have been predominantly utilized in international and domestic documents for the ‘Passive’ purpose of providing ‘Advice’ on ‘Greenhouse Gases’ and ‘Climate Change’. The different contextual uses within domestic documents show a divergence in the use of ice core publications in international domains. The ‘Active’ application of ice core publications by domestic institutions was used to address water security challenges. This highlights an existing science-to-policy pathway that Australia could continue to develop in order to achieve greater research impact.
By combining quantitative insights with qualitative interpretation, a mixed-methods approach captures where research has more meaningfully informed policy. We argue that this study makes a valuable contribution to the wider Antarctic research community, as the methodology is transferable to other NAPs conducting research impact studies on publicly funded Antarctic science. The ‘Active-Passive’ spectrum enables the identification of research projects that may be under-recognized by traditional citation metrics. The spectrum also reframes perceptions of impact and could help guide future research investments by funding entities. More broadly, our East Antarctic ice core example demonstrates how research impact can be evaluated by integrating metrics with contextual narratives, paving the way for its application across other Antarctic and non-Antarctic disciplines in the future.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102026100698.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr Tessa Vance from the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership and Dr Anthony Kiem from the University of Newcastle for providing advice on this paper. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for providing generous, critical, genuinely kind and constructive feedback on this article. Their feedback truly embodies the spirit of a genuine peer review.
Author contributions
CAL, IH-J and HEFN conceived and designed the study; IH-J conceived the methodology; CAL and IH-J developed the methodology and analysed the data; CAL wrote the manuscript; IH-J and HEFN contributed to editing and approved the final version.
Financial support
This work was supported by the Australian Government’s Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship through the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Future Drought Fund under a Top Up Scholarship. Support for accessing software used for the methodology was provided by the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
