Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery
- PMID: 24550691
- PMCID: PMC3914409
- DOI: 10.1155/2014/135812
Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery
Abstract
Background: Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance.
Method: A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined.
Results: A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact.
Conclusions: Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.
References
-
- Polit DF, Northam S. Impact factors in nursing journals. Nursing Outlook. 2011;59(1):18–28. - PubMed
-
- Shelton RD, Leydesdorff L. Publish or patent: bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;63(3):498–511.
-
- McKenna H, Daly J, Davidson P, Duffield C, Jackson D. RAE and ERA-spot the difference. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2012;49(4):375–377. - PubMed
-
- Dougherty MC, Lin S-Y, Mckenna HP, Seers K, Keeney S. Analysis of international content of ranked nursing journals in 2005 using ex post facto design. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2011;67(6):1358–1369. - PubMed
-
- Ketefian S, Freda MC. Impact factors and citations counts: a state of disquiet. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2009;46(6):751–752. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources