The evolution of current research impact metrics

Joseph S. Butler*, I. David Kaye, Arjun S. Sebastian, Scott C. Wagner, Patrick B. Morrissey, Gregory D. Schroeder, Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

39 Scopus citations


The prestige of publication has been based on traditional citation metrics, most commonly journal impact factor. However, the Internet has radically changed the speed, flow, and sharing of medical information. Furthermore, the explosion of social media, along with development of popular professional and scientific websites and blogs, has led to the need for alternative metrics, known as altmetrics, to quantify the wider impact of research. We explore the evolution of current research impact metrics and examine the evolving role of altmetrics in measuring the wider impact of research. We suggest that altmetrics used in research evaluation should be part of an informed peer-review process such as traditional metrics. Moreover, results based on altmetrics must not lead to direct decision making about research, but instead, should be used to assist experts in making decisions. Finally, traditional and alternative metrics should complement, not replace, each other in the peer-review process.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-228
Number of pages3
JournalClinical Spine Surgery
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1 May 2017
Externally publishedYes


  • alternative metrics
  • altmetrics
  • research impact metrics


Dive into the research topics of 'The evolution of current research impact metrics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this