Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Mar-Apr;18(2):296-309.
doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.171582.

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Affiliations
Review

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Ashok Agarwal et al. Asian J Androl. 2016 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Pendlebury DA. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2009;57:1–11. - PubMed
    1. Steele C, Butler L, Kingsley D. The publishing imperative: the pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learn Publ. 2006;19:277–90.
    1. Shadbolt N, Brody T, Carr L, Harnad S. The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable. In: Jacobs N, editor. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Chapter 21. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2006. pp. 195–205. Available from: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12453/
    1. Godin B. On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2006;68:109–33.
    1. Kolowich S. New Measures of Scholarly Impact. Inside Higher Ed. 2010. [Last accessed on 2015 Nov 18]. p. 17. Available from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/17/scholars_develop_new_metri... .

MeSH terms