Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

A «Basket of Metrics»—the Best Support for Understanding Journal Merit

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2016-1-4-25-31

Full Text:

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.

About the Authors

Lisa Colledge
Elsevier
Netherlands


Chris James
Elsevier
Netherlands


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.


For citation:


Colledge L., James C. 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: 2035


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)