Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Scholarly Publishing: Traditional Metrics

A guide to scholarly publishing and scholarly communication activities at Himmelfarb Library.

What are Bibliometrics?

Bibliometrics refers to measuring impact by counting citations, specifically by counting how many times a particular work has been cited by other works. 

Video: "How to Use Bibliometrics Effectively," from Thomson Reuters Web of Science

Help With Citation Analysis

The Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library provides access to a number of resources to help you analyze citations:

  • Scopus
    • Click "Analytics" on the blue ribbon above the search bar
    • You can get SJR and SNIP values (see "Journal Impact" tab) for journals and create charts comparing different titles
  • Web of Science
    • Click "Additional Resources" tab at the top of the page
    • Select "Journal Citation Reports" to get access to citation data
  • Quantifying Scholarly Research Impact guide
  • Reference & Instruction Librarian Tom Harrod's guide contains tips on calculating an author- and journal-level metrics (H-index, G-index, Eigenfactor, Scimago Journal Rank, and others) and a case study of two authors.
  • iCite​ 
    • iCite offers bibliometric information for journal articles included in the PubMed Database.  The Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) is a metric provided NIH that reflects a citation-based measure of scientific influence. Search by author name, title, or MeSH keyword or input a list of PubMed IDs. 

Pros and Cons of Bibliometrics

Pros

  • Citation = Impact: If an article is cited, that typically indicates that the work has had some impact on others in the field.
  • Objectivity: Metrics are calculated using equations, reducing the chance of bias that might occur through human judgment.
  • Statistical Analysis: There are many tools available to provide authors with citation data and to perform advanced statistical analyses of that data. 
  • Time-Saving: Relatively easy to implement, methods are straightforward. 

Cons

  • Time: Citations take 1-2 years on average to accumulate (Priem, Piwowar & Hemminger, 2012), so newer works may be left out.
  • Impact Level: Citation analysis only works at the author or journal level; cannot measure impact at the article level.
  • Narrow Focus: Focuses on peer-reviewed articles only, leaves out other types of research such as datasets that comprise a large part of the global literature.
  • Language Bias: Article authors are more likely to cite works written in the same language as the article.

Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2013). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Pre-print. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745v1.

Measuring Scholarly Research Impact - Books in the Himmelfarb Collection

The Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
Questions? Ask us.

Creative Commons License
All LibGuides by Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library are licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The George Washington University