TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding Traditional Research Impact Metrics
AU - Butler, Joseph S.
AU - Sebastian, Arjun S.
AU - Kaye, I. David
AU - Wagner, Scott C.
AU - Morrissey, Patrick B.
AU - Schroeder, Gregory D.
AU - Kepler, Christopher K.
AU - Vaccaro, Alexander R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Traditionally, the success of a researcher has been judged by the number of publications he or she has published in peer-review, indexed, high impact journals. However, to quantify the impact of research in the wider scientific community, a number of traditional metrics have been used, including Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank, Eigenfactor Score, and Article Influence Score. This article attempts to provide a broad overview of the main traditional impact metrics that have been used to assess scholarly output and research impact. We determine that there is no perfect all-encompassing metric to measure research impact, and, in the modern era, no single traditional metric is capable of accommodating all facets of research impact. Academics and researchers should be aware of the advantages and limitations of traditional metrics and should be judicious when selecting any metrics for an objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.
AB - Traditionally, the success of a researcher has been judged by the number of publications he or she has published in peer-review, indexed, high impact journals. However, to quantify the impact of research in the wider scientific community, a number of traditional metrics have been used, including Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank, Eigenfactor Score, and Article Influence Score. This article attempts to provide a broad overview of the main traditional impact metrics that have been used to assess scholarly output and research impact. We determine that there is no perfect all-encompassing metric to measure research impact, and, in the modern era, no single traditional metric is capable of accommodating all facets of research impact. Academics and researchers should be aware of the advantages and limitations of traditional metrics and should be judicious when selecting any metrics for an objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.
KW - Eigenfactor score
KW - SCImago journal rank
KW - impact factor
KW - research impact metrics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015643022&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000530
DO - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000530
M3 - Article
C2 - 28319469
AN - SCOPUS:85015643022
SN - 2380-0186
VL - 30
SP - 164
EP - 166
JO - Clinical Spine Surgery
JF - Clinical Spine Surgery
IS - 4
ER -