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.

Publication Quality, Evaluating Publishers, and Bibliometrics

Understanding the Strengths and Weaknesses of Bibliometric Measures: A Bibliography

There are many, many articles on the problems and flaws inherent in traditional bibliometrics. Frustrated scholars joined forces to draft and sign the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, commonly known as DORA in May 2013. Learn more about DORA in detail in this article by John Jay College's Marta Bladek.

Many academic institutions partially rely on bibliometric measures to assess the research productivity and quality of their faculty. Yet, even though tenure and promotion decisions often refer to impact factor, citation counts, h-index and other metrics, assessment committees, as well as academics in general, continue to debate the usefulness and objectivity of bibliometrics.

Becoming familiar with some of bibliometrics' caveats may be helpful for tenure/promotion candidates and those evaluating their work. John Jay Library's bibliography is a good resource. We also recommend these articles:

Chant, Ian. A Broken System: Nobel Winner Randy Schekman Talks Impact Factor and How To Fix Publishing.” Library Journal, Dec. 24, 2013. http://bit.ly/1c6ETlm

Hargittai, István. "Deeds and dreams of Eugene Garfield." Culture of Chemistry. Springer US, 2015. 13-18.

Kaspar, Wendi Arant. "What’s so Important about Peer Review?" College & Research Libraries 77.6 (2016): 678-81.D http://crl.acrl.org/content/77/6/678.full.pdf

“Time to remodel the journal impact factor.” Nature News & Comment, July 27, 2016. http://go.nature.com/2avY95a