In academic publishing, metrics measure the impact of a journal or published research. For example, counting the number of times a published article is cited in other research is a metric. Two widely-used metrics in publishing and research are journal-based and author-based metrics.
Journal-based metrics help measure the impact of a journal on the academic community. In addition, the measure calculates the average number of citations of a published article over a number of years. Author-based metrics, on the other hand, measure an author’s impact on the academic community. However, the research community is questioning the correct use of these metrics.
These metrics were recently discussed in a Global Research Report published by Clarivate Analytics’ Institute of Scientific Information.
The Global Research Report
The report titled “Profiles, not Metrics” covers the efficiency of metrics in measuring impact in scientific publishing. In addition, it discusses some of the shortcomings associated with measuring a journal or author’s impact on the academic community.
One of the main highlights of the report shows how these metrics fail to produce complete analytical information on researchers, journals, institutes, and universities. The impact and influence, as the report says, of these entities is incomplete. In fact, the report suggests that alternative approaches instead of the metrics may help in better calculation of the impact.
- The report states that the h-index might be too general. For example, it fails to take into account a researcher’s impact across a range of academic fields. An alternative is the use of a beam plot, which offers a wider range of impact factors.
- The report highlights the importance of using the entire Journal Citation Report (JCR) instead of simply focusing on the narrower Journal Impact Factor (JIF).
- Focusing on increasing a range of good data, the report suggests that Impact Profiles offer clearer, more thorough information than the Average Citation Impact.
- The report proposes a focus on a university’s Research Footprint. Global university rankings are simply a spot on a list that fails to see the diversity as well as the entirety of university activity and impact.
This list illustrates that with the proposal and utilization of new information and new forms of research, the need for these metrics is decreasing.
About the Organization
Clarivate Analytics is one of the important names in academic publishing. It provides insights and reports relevant to the academic and scientific communities. Simultaneously, it helps individuals and organizations transform their ideas into impactful innovations.
Clarivate Analytics publishes Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and Highly Cited Researchers List. JCR helps researchers identify the right journals for their publishing needs. Highly Cited Researchers List provides information on the world’s leading researchers, institutions, and journals and tracks global trends in research.
Web of Science Group provides access to research through its searchable database. It includes the Web of Science, which is the world’s most trusted and largest publisher-neutral citation index. Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) performs research to both maintain as well as expand the network of knowledge for the Web of Science Group. The institute provides clear solutions to complex problems faced in local and larger communities.
A Dedication to Research and Innovation
Jonathan Adams, Director of the Institute for Scientific Information shares his thoughts on the importance of this study: “For every over-simplified or misused metric there is a better alternative…By placing data in a wider context, we see new features and understand more.”
The study examines different methods of analysis, their shortcomings, and proposed alternatives. These offer access to research that can disseminate knowledge and further innovation. It also illustrates Clarivate Analytics’ dedication to support the research community and expand scientific knowledge.
What are your thoughts on these metrics and the proposed alternative tools? Have you encountered these studies in your own research? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.