A measure for the impact of research

The last few years have seen the proliferation of measures that quantify the scientific output of researchers. Yet, most of these measures focus on productivity, thus fostering the “publish or perish” paradigm. This article proposes a measure that aims at quantifying the impact of research de-emphasizing productivity, thus providing scientists an alternative, conceivably fairer, evaluation of their work. The measure builds from a published manuscript, the literature's most basic building block. The impact of an article is defined as the number of lead authors that have been influenced by it. Thus, the measure aims at quantifying the manuscript's reach, putting emphasis on scientists rather than on raw citations. The measure is then extrapolated to researchers and institutions.

[1]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  A case study of the Hirsch index for 26 non‐prominent physicists , 2007, 0708.0120.

[3]  F. C. Thorne The citation index: Another case of spurious validity , 1977 .

[4]  R. Simonsen Credit where credit is due , 1995, Nature Cell Biology.

[5]  B. Gillette Getting more for less , 2007 .

[6]  Aaron J Mackey,et al.  Getting More from Less , 2002, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[7]  B. Martin,et al.  Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy , 1983 .

[8]  Jorge E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship , 2009, Scientometrics.

[9]  J. Hirsch Does the h index have predictive power? , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis: A critical review , 1989, JASIS.

[11]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis , 2010, Scientometrics.

[12]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[13]  C. Aring,et al.  A CRITICAL REVIEW , 1939, Journal of neurology and psychiatry.

[14]  L. Bornmann,et al.  The state of h index research , 2009, EMBO reports.

[15]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Richard Van Noorden,et al.  Metrics: Do metrics matter? , 2010, Nature.

[17]  J. Margolis,et al.  Citation Indexing and Evaluation of Scientific Papers , 1967, Science.

[18]  W. Broad Would-be academician pirates papers. , 1980, Science.

[19]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research , 1996, Scientometrics.

[20]  B. Martin,et al.  Assessing Basic Research : Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy : Research Policy , 1987 .

[21]  A. D. Jackson,et al.  Measures for measures , 2006, Nature.

[22]  J. Lane Let's make science metrics more scientific , 2010, Nature.

[23]  D. Laband Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors , 1990 .

[24]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[25]  T. J. Phelan,et al.  A compendium of issues for citation analysis , 1999, Scientometrics.

[26]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  A quasi-quantitative citation model , 1987, Scientometrics.

[27]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[28]  W. Broad The publishing game: getting more for less. , 1981, Science.

[29]  Philip Campbell,et al.  Escape from the impact factor , 2008 .

[30]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[31]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.