Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics.
Publication/Presentation Date
5-1-2017
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.
Volume
30
Issue
4
First Page
164
Last Page
166
ISSN
2380-0194
Published In/Presented At
Butler, J. S., Sebastian, A. S., Kaye, I. D., Wagner, S. C., Morrissey, P. B., Schroeder, G. D., Kepler, C. K., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2017). Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics. Clinical spine surgery, 30(4), 164–166. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000530
Disciplines
Business Administration, Management, and Operations | Health and Medical Administration | Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods
PubMedID
28319469
Department(s)
Research, Administration and Leadership
Document Type
Article