Finch A. Can we do better than existing author citation metrics? Bioessays 2010; 32:744-7
(doi: 10.1002/bies.201000053)
Trying to find a single accurate metric to properly measure author impact is quite impossible at the moment as it would need to consider a number of important criteria. The article reviews the usefulness of the various author citation metrics currently available. The journal Impact Factor (jIF) is considered a wholly inadequate way of evaluating authors: the most significant reasons for it are disparities between subject areas and variation of article quality within a journal. The h-index and its variants significantly improves the IF in evaluating authors but still with some limitations. A recently proposed metric, the Author Superiority Index (ASI), corrects some of the primary problems of the h-index but is dependent upon the volume of papers published. Each of these metrics is only able to describe a small part of the whole and should then be used alongside experts' peer review.
(doi: 10.1002/bies.201000053)
Trying to find a single accurate metric to properly measure author impact is quite impossible at the moment as it would need to consider a number of important criteria. The article reviews the usefulness of the various author citation metrics currently available. The journal Impact Factor (jIF) is considered a wholly inadequate way of evaluating authors: the most significant reasons for it are disparities between subject areas and variation of article quality within a journal. The h-index and its variants significantly improves the IF in evaluating authors but still with some limitations. A recently proposed metric, the Author Superiority Index (ASI), corrects some of the primary problems of the h-index but is dependent upon the volume of papers published. Each of these metrics is only able to describe a small part of the whole and should then be used alongside experts' peer review.
Comments