All about metrics: definitions, how-to, and tools.
Using numbers to evaluate research and researchers is a tricky business. Work is being done to be sure these metrics are used responsibly.
- In Leaving the Gold Standard, Cameron Neylon points out that the citation and all the metrics built upon it shouldn't be the foundation of evaluation. A 2017 paper in PLOS ONE shows authorship and citation behavior can be manipulated. This editorial shows a researcher's view from the Global South.
- HuMetricsHSS is an attempt to bring values into metrics, aimed specifically at humanities and social sciences researchers. Supporting blog posts are here and here.
- The Leiden Manifesto and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) both encourage best practices in the use of bibliometrics when assessing researchers.
- In this 2018 Nature Comment, an associate professor discusses how the conversation around metrics doesn't give early career researchers enough guidance to move forward. The folks at DORA (mentioned above), describe their work that responds to his comments.
- Snowball Metrics provides 'recipes' for standardized metrics used by research universities around the world.
- A publisher estimates how reliable different metrics tools are in a 2017 blog post.
- A paper on bioRxiv presents results of research that prove the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) can't be used to evaluate an article or author; the JIF can only be used to evaluate journals.
- Karin Wulf, professor of history at the College of William & Mary warns about metrics in this post. In the post, she points at a 2015 HEFCE report titled The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management.