This study sets out to conceptually distinguish between ‘public’ and ‘greater good’ in respect to research impact claims. We argue that the former is a category reflective of genuine benefit for the wider public, while the latter merely represents a rhetorical category to pursue the ends of a select few. Methodologically, we showcase that only within the actual research conduct is it possible to distinguish between these two categories. Likewise, without acknowledging methodological limitations, researchers may contribute to post-truth predicaments in the sense that the interaction ritual chains they are using constitute a mere rhetorical flourish rather than a rigorous argument for genuine benefit. We conclude with an appeal to future scrutiny for how researchers can retain their integrity in this new research impact discourse. We argue that an uncritical use of impact arguments may undermine the very social fabric that makes scientific pursuits possible.