1. Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics
- Author
-
I. David Kaye, Arjun S. Sebastian, Gregory D. Schroeder, Scott C. Wagner, Joseph S. Butler, Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro, and Patrick B Morrissey
- Subjects
030213 general clinical medicine ,Measure (data warehouse) ,Impact factor ,Computer science ,Research ,05 social sciences ,MEDLINE ,Bibliometrics ,Eigenfactor ,050905 science studies ,Data science ,Objective assessment ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,SCImago Journal Rank ,Humans ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,Surgery ,Neurology (clinical) ,Metric (unit) ,Journal Impact Factor ,0509 other social sciences - Abstract
Traditionally, the success of a researcher has been judged by the number of publications he or she has published in peer-review, indexed, high impact journals. However, to quantify the impact of research in the wider scientific community, a number of traditional metrics have been used, including Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank, Eigenfactor Score, and Article Influence Score. This article attempts to provide a broad overview of the main traditional impact metrics that have been used to assess scholarly output and research impact. We determine that there is no perfect all-encompassing metric to measure research impact, and, in the modern era, no single traditional metric is capable of accommodating all facets of research impact. Academics and researchers should be aware of the advantages and limitations of traditional metrics and should be judicious when selecting any metrics for an objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF