Scholarly Metrics
- Sheridan Libraries
- Guides
- Scholarly Metrics
- Cautions about Metrics
All about metrics: definitions, how-to, and tools.
Caveat emptor
Caution! Quantitative metrics should be only one of many tools used to evaluate the quality, value, and impact of an author or institution's work.
The question of how best to evaluate an individual's output or that of a lab, department, or university, is complex. The solutions are high-stakes in that they will affect researchers' careers, including promotion & tenure, grant success, hiring decisions, and more. It behooves the research community to carefully think through the appropriate measures to use.
Here are some resources to consider as you seek to demonstrate the quality of your own work, or evaluate that of others.
- Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metricsThis article outlines 10 recommendations about how researchers and research ought to be evaluated. Of particular note is #1: "Quantitative evaluation should support qualitative, expert assessment."
- Using Altmetric Data Responsibly: A Guide to Interpretation and Good PracticeThis guide is meant for librarians, researchers, and administrators wishing to understand and use Altmetric tools to evaluate scholarly output in a holistic fashion, beyond traditional measurements.
- The DORA DeclarationAlso known as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, the DORA Declaration outlines 18 desired research evaluation improvements. The demands are addressed to all affected parties, including institutions, researchers, publishers, and funders. Of particular note is #15: "When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics."
- Why you should not use the Journal Impact Factor to evaluate researchThis article explains why the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is flawed. It also explains another important point of confusion: JIF attempts to measure *journal* impact and is not an indicator of *article* impact or quality.
- Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reasonThis 2016 article succinctly describes the inherent flaws with JIF and why it shouldn't be used to evaluate individual articles or authors.
- The “impact” of the Journal Impact Factor in the review, tenure, and promotion processThis 2019 blog post summarizes the findings of a study of how over 800 promotion & tenure documents at universities in the US and Canada may be misusing JIF to evaluate researchers and scholarly output.
- The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effectsA very deep dive into JIF