Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

Objectives Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. Design We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. Data sources All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. Eligibility criteria (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007–2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher’s achievements. Data extraction and synthesis Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848–0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. Results Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or ‘altmetric’ data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. Conclusions All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

[1]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review , 2017, BMJ Open.

[2]  Anthony R Artino,et al.  Beyond Citation Rates: A Real-Time Impact Analysis of Health Professions Education Research Using Altmetrics , 2017, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[3]  Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al.  Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citation-based research rewards policies? , 2017, Scientometrics.

[4]  K. Slim,et al.  Impact factor: An assessment tool for journals or for scientists? , 2017, Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine.

[5]  N. Valsangkar,et al.  Endangered academia: preserving the pediatric surgeon scientist. , 2017, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[6]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  The Evolution of Current Research Impact Metrics: From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics? , 2017, Clinical spine surgery.

[7]  George M. Santangelo Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research , 2017, Molecular biology of the cell.

[8]  K. Hinchcliff,et al.  Metrics and the Scientific Literature: Deciding What to Read , 2017, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[9]  Seena Fazel,et al.  What is the impact of a research publication? , 2017, Evidence-Based Mental Health.

[10]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluation , 2017, PloS one.

[11]  Maria Liakata,et al.  Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements , 2017, PloS one.

[12]  Alexandra Bolocan,et al.  Tendencies on Traditional Metrics. , 2017, Chirurgia.

[13]  Denis Borenstein,et al.  The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Gangan Prathap,et al.  Citation indices and dimensional homogeneity , 2017, ArXiv.

[15]  Alexander I. Pudovkin,et al.  The Journal Impact Factor Should Not Be Discarded , 2016, Journal of Korean medical science.

[16]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Impact Factor : Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach , 2017 .

[17]  Biresh K. Sahoo,et al.  Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis ☆ , 2017 .

[18]  Ольга Москалева,et al.  День Clarivate Analytics , 2017 .

[19]  Announcement: Nature journals support the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. , 2017, Nature.

[20]  Robert M Carey,et al.  Quantifying Scientific Merit: Is it Time to Transform the Impact Factor? , 2016, Circulation research.

[21]  L. Napolitano Scholarly Activity Requirements for Critical Care Fellowship Program Directors: What Should It Be? How Should We Measure it? , 2016, Critical care medicine.

[22]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications, as used in the Italian national research assessment exercise (VQR 2011–2014) , 2016, Scientometrics.

[23]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review protocol , 2016, BMJ Open.

[24]  E. M. Kreines,et al.  Control model for the alignment of the quality assessment of scientific documents based on the analysis of content-related context , 2016 .

[25]  Zili Zhang,et al.  PR-Index: Using the h-Index and PageRank for Determining True Impact , 2016, PloS one.

[26]  Feng Xia,et al.  Identifying Anomalous Citations for Objective Evaluation of Scholarly Article Impact , 2016, PloS one.

[27]  K. Freund,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States , 2016, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[28]  Ewen Callaway,et al.  Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric , 2016, Nature.

[29]  Antonia Ferrer-Sapena,et al.  The impact factor as a measuring tool of the prestige of the journals in research assessment in mathematics , 2016 .

[30]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines , 2016, PLoS biology.

[31]  E. Frixione,et al.  Assessing Individual Intellectual Output in Scientific Research: Mexico’s National System for Evaluating Scholars Performance in the Humanities and the Behavioral Sciences , 2016, PloS one.

[32]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  What determines researchers’ scientific impact? A case study of Quebec researchers , 2016 .

[33]  Ten-Year Publication Trajectories of Health Services Research Career Development Award Recipients , 2016, Evaluation & the health professions.

[34]  Khaled Moustafa,et al.  Aberration of the Citation , 2016, Accountability in research.

[35]  Megan M. Tschudy,et al.  Pediatric Academic Productivity: Pediatric Benchmarks for the h- and g-Indices. , 2016, The Journal of pediatrics.

[36]  L M Bouter,et al.  How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers , 2016, BMJ Open.

[37]  S. Azer,et al.  Bibliometric analysis of the top-cited gastroenterology and hepatology articles , 2016, BMJ Open.

[38]  A. Harlev,et al.  Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics , 2016, Asian journal of andrology.

[39]  Moreno Marzolla Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: The case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[40]  Johan Bollen,et al.  An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions , 2016, Scientometrics.

[41]  Luis A. Nunes Amaral,et al.  The Distribution of the Asymptotic Number of Citations to Sets of Publications by a Researcher or from an Academic Department Are Consistent with a Discrete Lognormal Model , 2015, PloS one.

[42]  Heather Lea Moulaison,et al.  Supporting Scholars: An Analysis of Academic Library Websites' Documentation on Metrics and Impact , 2015 .

[43]  Brent Thoma,et al.  The Altmetric Score: A New Measure for Article-Level Dissemination and Impact. , 2015, Annals of emergency medicine.

[44]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex‐ante and ex‐post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  Mohamed Ben Ahmed,et al.  New scientometric indicator for the qualitative evaluation of scientific production , 2015 .

[46]  D. Knudson Kinesiology Faculty Citations Across Academic Rank , 2015 .

[47]  Christopher W. Belter,et al.  Bibliometric indicators: opportunities and limits. , 2015, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[48]  J. Waljee Discussion: Are Quantitative Measures of Academic Productivity Correlated with Academic Rank in Plastic Surgery? A National Study , 2015, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[49]  A. Kali Scientific impact and altmetrics , 2015, Indian journal of pharmacology.

[50]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[51]  M. Christopher Weighing the impact (factor) of publishing in veterinary journals. , 2015, Journal of veterinary cardiology : the official journal of the European Society of Veterinary Cardiology.

[52]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[53]  Javier Franco Aixelá,et al.  Publishing and impact criteria, and their bearing on Translation Studies: In search of comparability , 2015 .

[54]  Edward S. Lee,et al.  Impact of Subspecialty Fellowship Training on Research Productivity Among Academic Plastic Surgery Faculty in the United States , 2015, Eplasty.

[55]  B. Páll‐Gergely On the Confusion of Quality with Impact: A Note on Pyke's M-Index , 2015 .

[56]  Yasunori Baba,et al.  Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan , 2015 .

[57]  K. Selvarajoo Measuring merit: take the risk. , 2015, Science.

[58]  A. Arimoto Declining symptom of academic productivity in the Japanese research university sector , 2015 .

[59]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[60]  Molly Carnes,et al.  A Quantitative Linguistic Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques From Investigators at One Institution , 2015, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[61]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[62]  C Nadine Wathen,et al.  Into the gray: a modified approach to citation analysis to better understand research impact. , 2015, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[63]  Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti,et al.  A New Bibliometric Index Based on the Shape of the Citation Distribution , 2014, PloS one.

[64]  Liz Allen,et al.  Alternative Perspectives on Impact: The Potential of ALMs and Altmetrics to Inform Funders about Research Impact , 2014, PLoS biology.

[65]  L. Ransdell,et al.  Editorial Board Position Statement Regarding the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) Recommendations With Respect to Journal Impact Factors , 2014, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[66]  Phaedra E Cress Using altmetrics and social media to supplement impact factor: maximizing your article's academic and societal impact. , 2014, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[67]  Birger Larsen,et al.  A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators , 2014, Scientometrics.

[68]  Medha Joshi,et al.  Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientifc publications. , 2014, The journal of contemporary dental practice.

[69]  Christian Pieter Hoffmann,et al.  Impact Factor 2.0: Applying Social Network Analysis to Scientific Impact Assessment , 2014, 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[70]  Douglas E Green,et al.  Practice corner: the science and art of measuring the impact of an article. , 2014, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[71]  Todd A. Carpenter,et al.  Comparing digital apples to digital apples: Background on NISO's effort to build an infrastructure for new forms of scholarly assessment , 2014, Inf. Serv. Use.

[72]  Bogumił Kamiński,et al.  Advances in Social Simulation - Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the European Social Simulation Association, ESSA 2013, Warsaw, Poland, September 16-20, 2013 , 2014, ESSA.

[73]  Salih Selek,et al.  Use of h index and g index for American academic psychiatry , 2013, Scientometrics.

[74]  Akshaya Kumar Biswal,et al.  An Absolute Index (Ab-index) to Measure a Researcher’s Useful Contributions and Productivity , 2013, PloS one.

[75]  Edward Towpik,et al.  Sand Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) , 2013 .

[76]  E. Benzel,et al.  Research productivity and fellowship training in neurosurgery. , 2013, World neurosurgery.

[77]  H Hunt Batjer,et al.  Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery--critical review of the "h" index and its variants. , 2013, World neurosurgery.

[78]  Alfred E. Hartemink,et al.  Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar , 2013, PeerJ.

[79]  J. Danielson,et al.  Quantifying Published Scholarly Works of Experiential Education Directors , 2013, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.

[80]  Adam Eyre-Walker,et al.  The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations , 2013, PLoS biology.

[81]  Harald Heinzl,et al.  Assessing the scientific relevance of a single publication over time , 2013 .

[82]  Edward N. Pugh,et al.  Embracing the principles of the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment: Robert Balaban’s Editorial , 2013, The Journal of general physiology.

[83]  Sauro Succi,et al.  The Z-index: A geometric representation of productivity and impact which accounts for information in the entire rank-citation profile , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[84]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[85]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Google Scholar e índice h en biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica , 2013 .

[86]  Liaojun Pang,et al.  Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[87]  R. Cagan The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , 2013, Disease Models & Mechanisms.

[88]  Correction: The Measurement of the Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices across Scientific Fields , 2013, PLoS ONE.

[89]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: the popularization of bibliometric asessment , 2013, Medicina intensiva.

[90]  J. Ruiz-Castillo,et al.  The Measurement of the Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices across Scientific Fields , 2013, PloS one.

[91]  Alejandro M. Aragón,et al.  A measure for the impact of research , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[92]  Stefan C. Wolter,et al.  The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Performance in Education Sciences , 2012, Research in Higher Education.

[93]  Public attitudes to science in South Africa , 2013 .

[94]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research , 2012, PloS one.

[95]  Warren Thorngate,et al.  By the Numbers: Track Record, Flawed Reviews, Journal Space, and the Fate of Talented Authors , 2013, ESSA.

[96]  Reflecting on sharing scholarship, considering clinical impact and impact factor. , 2012, Nurse education today.

[97]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Publication and patent analysis of European researchers in the field of production technology and manufacturing systems , 2012, Scientometrics.

[98]  Michael J. Kurtz,et al.  A Measure of Total Research Impact Independent of Time and Discipline , 2012, PloS one.

[99]  Gangan Prathap Evaluating journal performance metrics , 2012, Scientometrics.

[100]  Konrad Campowsky,et al.  BonFIRE: A Multi-cloud Test Facility for Internet of Services Experimentation , 2012, TRIDENTCOM.

[101]  D. Kallmes,et al.  Pre-residency publication rate strongly predicts future academic radiology potential. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[102]  Y. Ho,et al.  Bibliometric analysis of the Polish Journal of Environmental Studies (2000-11) , 2012 .

[103]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  A sensitivity analysis of researchers' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[104]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  An Internet measure of the value of citations , 2012, Inf. Sci..

[105]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output , 2012, Scientometrics.

[106]  Gunther Eysenbach,et al.  Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[107]  David M. Walker,et al.  Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual , 2011, Scientometrics.

[108]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research , 2011, PloS one.

[109]  Gabriel Kreiman,et al.  Nine Criteria for a Measure of Scientific Output , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[110]  Gregory D. Webster,et al.  The research productivity of academic psychologists: assessment, trends, and best practice recommendations , 2011, Scientometrics.

[111]  Nathan Efron BScOptom PhD DSc,et al.  Citation analysis of Australia‐trained optometrists , 2011, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[112]  Menghui Li,et al.  Quantifying the influence of scientists and their publications: distinguishing between prestige and popularity , 2011, ArXiv.

[113]  Manfred Maier,et al.  Development of a practical tool to measure the impact of publications on the society based on focus group discussions with scientists , 2011, BMC public health.

[114]  R. L. Ribeiro,et al.  Comentários adicionais ao artigo de Thomaz e cols.: como avaliar "qualidade de publicação" , 2011 .

[115]  J. Sahel Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[116]  P. Devos Research and bibliometrics: a long history…. , 2011, Clinics and research in hepatology and gastroenterology.

[117]  François Gélineau,et al.  Are the h-index and some of its alternatives discriminatory of epistemological beliefs and methodological preferences of faculty members? The case of social scientists in Quebec , 2011, Scientometrics.

[118]  Aaron A. Sorensen,et al.  Productivity and impact of the top 100 cited Parkinson's disease investigators since 1985. , 2011, Journal of Parkinson's disease.

[119]  Richard Van Noorden Love thy lab neighbour , 2010 .

[120]  N. Assimakis,et al.  A new author’s productivity index: p-index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[121]  Wolfgang Stroebe,et al.  The graying of academia: will it reduce scientific productivity? , 2010, The American psychologist.

[122]  Adam Finch,et al.  Can we do better than existing author citation metrics? , 2010, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[123]  Christian Gumpenberger,et al.  Going beyond Citations: SERUM — a new Tool Provided by a Network of Libraries , 2010 .

[124]  Richard Van Noorden Metrics: A profusion of measures , 2010, Nature.

[125]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Eigenfactor and article influence scores in the Journal Citation Reports , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[126]  V. Durieux,et al.  Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. , 2010, Radiology.

[127]  Richard van Noorden Love thy lab neighbour. , 2010, Nature.

[128]  Richard Van Noorden,et al.  Metrics: A profusion of measures. , 2010, Nature.

[129]  João Claro,et al.  A made-to-measure indicator for cross-disciplinary bibliometric ranking of researchers performance , 2010, Scientometrics.

[130]  Gad Saad,et al.  Applying the h-index in exploring bibliometric properties of elite marketing scholars , 2010, Scientometrics.

[131]  N. Haslam,et al.  Early-career scientific achievement and patterns of authorship: the mixed blessings of publication leadership and collaboration , 2009 .

[132]  Yanping Wang,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Evaluate Faculty Members’ Research Performance , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[133]  C. Neylon,et al.  Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact , 2009, PLoS biology.

[134]  John Mingers,et al.  Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch-index , 2009, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[135]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Exploring and Understanding Scientific Metrics in Citation Networks , 2009, Complex.

[136]  Maja Jokić H-index as a new scientometric indicator , 2009 .

[137]  Kuan-Teh Jeang,et al.  H-index, mentoring-index, highly-cited and highly-accessed: how to evaluate scientists? , 2008, Retrovirology.

[138]  T. V. Leeuwen Testing the validity of the Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes , 2008 .

[139]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data , 2008 .

[140]  H. Marsh,et al.  Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications , 2022 .

[141]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-Index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science , 2008, ArXiv.

[142]  Ralf W. Schlosser,et al.  Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews , 2007 .

[143]  Jürgen Harald Jacob,et al.  Early recognition of high quality researchers of the German psychiatry by worldwide accessible bibliometric indicators , 2007, Scientometrics.

[144]  Marjori Matzke,et al.  F1000Prime recommendation of An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. , 2005 .

[145]  S. Hawker,et al.  Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically , 2002, Qualitative health research.

[146]  J. King A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation , 1987, J. Inf. Sci..

[147]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.