There are many different research metrics, most of which are based on citation counts. The idea is that citations offer a way to measure the influence of a publication in scholarly conversation.
Research metrics can be at the journal, article or researcher-level. Additionally, Altmetrics seek to measure a publication’s influence on policy, and its reach in mainstream and social media.
Research metrics permeate through many aspects of university life. As a researcher, you can use them to:
- determine your publishing strategy (for example, where you choose to publish)
- validate your work by demonstrating the range of uptake by others
- build a profile to progress your career
- identify key researchers and research trends in your field.
Metrics are also used in many university rankings, and these play a role in attracting new students.
Use metrics with care
There are limitations to research metrics and used without the appropriate care and consideration can become blunt instruments in assessing complex things.
Research metrics can disadvantage researchers from certain disciplines. They can also be manipulated or ‘gamed’, creating unintended consequences. Additionally, the most popular metrics are proprietary, meaning universities must pay large sums of money to access them.
Importantly, citations can be positive, negative or neutral. For example, Andrew Wakefield’s infamous, fraudulent and now retracted study linking autism to vaccines has been cited over 1,600 times in Web of Science. Interestingly this article was published in The Lancet, a top-ranking journal, with a Journal Impact Factor exceeding 200. This is one reason why journal rankings are not a great way to assess the quality of individual research articles.
While progress can sometimes feel painfully slow, initiatives such as DORA and Lieden seek to improve how research quality and impact is evaluated.
Learn more
Discover more about this topic on the research metrics web page, and if you have any questions, contact the Library.
