Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1. One important distinction we had to explain to authors was differentiating between the impact of a communication effort within a study and the impact of that study outside of academic contexts. Others have written about this as well (e.g., Smith, Citation 2018 ), noting as an example that a randomized controlled trial can have an impact on health outcomes but the impact of that research beyond the trial would likely be what most considered "impact." Also, unlike in the 100 th issue forum, which included impact ON health communication research, we tried to focus primarily impact beyond the original or initial research studies. 2. Two other important considerations. First, who documents impact is not specified because I am not sure it matters. You can document others' impact as well or better than you can document your own. Community partners are well situated to document impact in ways researchers might have a hard time writing up in a way that resonates with stakeholders. Second, defining "original research context" is also a challenge – but scholars should document impact more often than not and worry about the utility or quality of those documented impacts over time. For example, outside of the original research context could be a research context in another field. 3. This categorization is reasonable but completely subjective and ignores nuance and overlap of the many impressive activities reported. Still, such categorization streamlines the discussion of trends and observations across essays. 4. This conclusion mirrors that of the editors in their reply to the essays in the 100 th issue of the journal (Thompson et al., Citation 2010 ). In almost 15 years, due undoubtedly in the need for researchers to document their individual impact on the field rather than their impact beyond the field, the documentation of impact of research outside of the immediate research context has changed little among health communication researchers. In that commentary, the authors note the need to reframe what one considers scholarly activity to truly allow for more efforts to have an impact beyond one's own research – an important and thoughtful comment that unfortunately seems to be mostly a priority in writing rather than in practice for most scholars. 5. This concern is not unlike critiques of research studies where some theory/model is mostly unsupported by results, but authors suggest in the discussion that the important results are what supported the theory/model.

Scientific Impact: Opportunity and Necessity

Impact in psychiatry research through experimentation, translation to industry, policy development and public engagement

National Scientific Facilities and Their Science Impact on Non-Biomedical Research

The Impact of Research Funding on Knowledge Creation and Dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants

Community and partner engagement in dissemination and implementation research at the National Institutes of Health: an analysis of recently funded studies and opportunities to advance the field

The Challenges of Planning for High-Impact Research

Enhancing social value considerations in prioritising publicly funded biomedical research: the vital role of peer review

Impact Vitality - A Measure for Excellent Scientists

Tracing Long-Term Outcomes of Basic Research Using Citation Networks

The Pursuit of Positive Impacts: Translating Longitudinal Cancer Studies into Successful Health Communication Interventions

Identifying the impact of diabetes research

The Influence of Biomedical Research on Future Business Funding: Analyzing Scientific Impact and Content in Industrial Investments

Measuring translational research impact requires reaching beyond current metrics

Advancing the Impact of Critical Qualitative Research on Policy, Practice, and Science

Predicting citation impact from altmetric attention in clinical and translational research: Do big splashes lead to ripple effects?

The Importance of Documenting the Impacts of Health Communication

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science

Indirect costs and scientific impact at NIMH

The NIH "BEST" programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

Trends of High-Impact Studies in Pharmacology and Pharmacy: A Cross-Sectional Study

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Science: A Dialectic of Scientific Fame