Pros and cons of bibliometrics
:Pros and cons of bibliometrics
Bibliometrics can be useful but they are also contentious
They are a #quantitative way of measuring your #research_impact, so are seen as #objective. This also means #research impact can be compared more readily than with #peer_review, which is seen as #subjective
The procedure is transparent and results can be reproduced using the same method
They are inexpensive to produce and use
They take relatively little time to produce and use
They are #scalable. You can look at bibliometrics on an individual, institutional, national or international level
Some familiarity with bibliometrics may help in relation to #REF (#Research_Excellence_Framework) cycles, as bibliometrics have been used to support evaluation in some sub-panels.
#Cons
Metrics distinguish between what is cited and what is not cited, not what is necessarily of good quality. It is perfectly possible for articles to be cited a lot but for negative reasons
Metrics can be gamed i.e. exploited by researchers and journals to artificially boost their bibliometric scores
Some people feel bibliometrics skew research by encouraging people to write papers they think will be cited more, not what is valuable in research terms
*>Variations between areas of study need taking into account as publication frequency and citation cultures differ. It is not reasonable, for example, to compare articles from medicine and the arts
