A brief history of research metrics
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:54 am
Since the 1960s and Eugene Garfield who defined the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 1964, research metrics have focused on counting the citations from a research article published in journals. However, until the late 90’s the validation of a research paper by peer-review was sufficient to promote the quality of it. Peer review was a binary method of evaluation: good vs. not-good.
The advancement of technology and the portugal rcs data introduction of automation made counting citations easier and more frequent. It started with the launch of the Web of Science database in 2002, followed by Elsevier’s Scopus and then Google Scholar, both in 2004. From there, research evaluation shifted from binary to more balanced rating. This shift brought a lot of concerns to the academic community, especially with respect to allocating research funds.
Jan Hrušák, Chair of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, explains:
“The wrong use of the metrics, as a decision supporting instrument, leads to the present crisis of reproducibility in science, is enhancing tendencies for scientific misconducts by putting too much emphasis on formal achievements with lacking quality control.”
Up until recently, all eyes were on just a few indices which became the fundamental ways of assessing research. Although it is clear now that they can’t actually indicate the quality of research and therefore its impact, they are still relevant in many aspects. What are these traditional indices and why they still matter.
The advancement of technology and the portugal rcs data introduction of automation made counting citations easier and more frequent. It started with the launch of the Web of Science database in 2002, followed by Elsevier’s Scopus and then Google Scholar, both in 2004. From there, research evaluation shifted from binary to more balanced rating. This shift brought a lot of concerns to the academic community, especially with respect to allocating research funds.
Jan Hrušák, Chair of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, explains:
“The wrong use of the metrics, as a decision supporting instrument, leads to the present crisis of reproducibility in science, is enhancing tendencies for scientific misconducts by putting too much emphasis on formal achievements with lacking quality control.”
Up until recently, all eyes were on just a few indices which became the fundamental ways of assessing research. Although it is clear now that they can’t actually indicate the quality of research and therefore its impact, they are still relevant in many aspects. What are these traditional indices and why they still matter.