Back to Search Start Over

Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics

Authors :
I. David Kaye
Arjun S. Sebastian
Gregory D. Schroeder
Scott C. Wagner
Joseph S. Butler
Christopher K. Kepler
Alexander R. Vaccaro
Patrick B Morrissey
Source :
Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication. 30:164-166
Publication Year :
2017
Publisher :
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2017.

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.

Details

ISSN :
23800186
Volume :
30
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....3a6872182c9b3c4de3a5ba3d4430186f
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000530