76
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found
      Is Open Access

      Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

      Asian Journal of Andrology
      Medknow Publications
      article-level metrics, bibliometrics, citation counts, h-index, impact factor, research databases, research impact, research productivity, traditional metrics

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.

            P O Seglen (1997)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

              Background Sharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available. Principal Findings We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression. Significance This correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                26806079
                4770502
                10.4103/1008-682X.171582
                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0

                article-level metrics,bibliometrics,citation counts,h-index,impact factor,research databases,research impact,research productivity,traditional metrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article