A «Basket of Metrics»—the Best Support for Understanding Journal Merit
https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2016-1-4-25-31
Abstract
Abstract: Aim: To survey opinion of the assertion that useful metric based input requires a «basket of metrics» to allow more varied and nuanced insights into merit than is possible by using one metric alone.
Methods: A poll was conducted to survey opinions (N=204; average response rate=61 %) within the international research community on using usage metrics in merit systems.
Results: «Research is best quantified using multiple criteria» was selected by most (40 %) respondents as the reason that usage metrics are valuable, and 95 % of respondents indicated that they would be likely or very likely to use usage metrics in their assessments of research merit, if they had access to them. There was a similar degree of preference for simple and sophisticated usage metrics confirming that one size does not fit all, and that a one metric approach to merit is insufficient.
Conclusion: This survey demonstrates a clear willingness and a real appetite to use a «basket of metrics» to broaden the ways in which research merit can be detected and demonstrated.
References
1. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. URL: http://am.ascb.org/dora/
2. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. Science. 1955;122(3159):108–111.
3. Garfield E. How can Impact Factors be improved? British Medical Journal.1996;313(7054):411–413.
4. Colledge L. Elsevier’s response to HEFCE’s call for evidence: independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment. URL: http://bit.ly/hefceresponse.
5. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics. 2010;4(3):265-277. DOI: 10.1016/j. joi.2010.01.002.
6. González-Pereira B., Guerrero-Bote V.P., Moya-Anegón F.A. New approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics. 2010;4(3):379–391. DOI: 10.1016/j. joi.2010.03.002.
7. Colledge L. Usage Guidebook. URL: http://bit.ly/usageguidebook.
8. Colledge L., James C. 5 ways usage metrics can help you see the bigger picture. Elsevier Connect, posted on 23 March 2015. URL: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-ways-usage-metrics-can-help-you-see-the-bigger-picture.
9. Haustein S. Readership Metrics in Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Ed. by B. Cronin and C.R. Sugimoto. 2014; ch. 17:327–344.
10. Colledge L., James C. How you are using usage data to measure research impact — or what’s stopping you? Elsevier Connect, posted May 2015. URL: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-you-are-using-usage-data-to-measure-research-impact-or-whats-stopping-you.
11. Guidelines from Project COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources). URL: projectcounter.org/r4/COPR4.pdf, page 25.
12. Moed H.F. UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics. 2008;74(1):153-161. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1.
13. Romano N.C. Jr. Journal Self-Citation V: Coercive Journal Self-Citation — Manipulations to Increase Impact Factors May Do More Harm than Good in the Long Run. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2009;25 (article 5):41–56.
14. The findings of a series of engagement activities exploring the culture of scientific research in the UK. 2014. URL: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/research-culture/.
15. SnowballMetrics.URL: http://www.snowballmetrics.com.
Review
For citations:
Colledge L., James Ch. A «Basket of Metrics»—the Best Support for Understanding Journal Merit. Science Editor and Publisher. 2016;1(1-4):25-31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2016-1-4-25-31
Views:
2677
Email this article 
