Butler Joseph S, Sebastian Arjun S, Kaye I David, Wagner Scott C, Morrissey Patrick B, Schroeder Gregory D, Kepler Christopher K, Vaccaro Alexander R
Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Clin Spine Surg. 2017 May;30(4):164-166. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000530.
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.
传统上,研究者的成功是根据其在同行评审、被索引的高影响力期刊上发表的论文数量来评判的。然而,为了量化研究在更广泛科学界的影响力,人们使用了一些传统指标,包括影响因子、Scimago期刊排名、特征因子得分和论文影响得分。本文试图对用于评估学术产出和研究影响力的主要传统影响指标进行全面概述。我们认为,不存在一个完美的、涵盖所有方面的指标来衡量研究影响力,在现代,没有单一的传统指标能够涵盖研究影响力的所有方面。学者和研究人员应该意识到传统指标的优点和局限性,在选择任何指标以客观评估学术产出和研究影响力时都应该谨慎。