Back to Search
Start Over
Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics
- 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.
- 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
Subjects
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