Data material for "Mapping How Scientific Research Informs Policy with Limited Legislative Engagement"

While the concept of evidence-informed policymaking has gained widespread traction, legislative institutions remain marginal in both theory and practice. Most empirical research on evidence use privileges executive actors, overlooking the distinct epistemic cultures, deliberative dynamics, and institutional constraints of parliaments. This study addresses that gap by conducting a bibliometric and thematic analysis of 1,325 open-access journal articles published between 2020 and 2024, each of which references policy impact. Drawing data from Dimensions.ai and Lens.org, we used frequency analysis, topic modelling (LDA), and manual thematic classification to assess how scientific research engages with policy domains—and to what extent legislative relevance features in that engagement. Findings reveal stark asymmetries in sectoral focus, with health, environment, and technology dominating the landscape, while governance, education, and social policy remain underrepresented. More critically, references to legislative institutions, actors, or processes are rare, suggesting a structural marginalisation of legislatures in the knowledge-policy interface. The study reflects on the limitations of bibliometric approaches in capturing tacit, relational, or symbolic uses of evidence, and proposes complementary methods rooted in institutional ethnography, co-creation, and knowledge brokering. It argues that strengthening research–legislature linkages require a shift from linear models of knowledge translation to more context-sensitive, politically attuned frameworks. Evidence use in parliaments must be understood not only as an instrumental act, but as a negotiated, epistemic practice central to democratic governance.