Contact Us
Adaptation Statement
This guide was adapted from the following:
- Journal Impact Factor - The Metrics Toolkit by The Metrics Toolkit Editorial Board, licensed under a CC BY 4.0
- Introduction to Research Impact by the University of Alberta Library licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0
| Traditional research impact metrics—such as citation counts, h-index, and journal impact factors—are commonly used to support researchers in grant applications, tenure and promotion reviews, as well as award and scholarship nominations. Beyond these formal uses, research impact metrics also enable scholars to articulate the significance of their work within their field. This can help in building a compelling narrative of their scholarly contributions and in fostering new opportunities for collaboration and future research initiatives. |
Guide Coverage
Research metrics, or indicators, are quantitative measures of research influence that use data such as citation counts. There are different types of research metrics. The metrics covered in this guide are:
- Author-level Metrics - Author-level metrics are citation metrics that measure the impact of individual authors, researchers, academics, and scholars (e.g. H-Index, i10-Index, G-Index).
- Journal-level Metrics - Journal-level metrics aim to measure a publication's impact using citation analysis (e.g. Journal Impact Factor, CiteSource, SCImago, Eigenfactor, SNIP).
- Article Impact Metrics - Article impact metrics measure how often an article is cited. Some newer tools also analyze the context of citations, indicating whether an article was cited to provide background, support a claim, or challenge a finding (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Download Counts).
- Book Impact Metrics - Book impact measurements provide information about influence, visibility and uptake. This type of measurement requires combining quantitative and qualitative indicators from multiple sources ( e.g. Journal Citing a Book, Book Citing a Book, Library Holdings, Book Reviews).
- Alternative Metrics - Alternative metrics, commonly called "altmetrics", are measures based on online activity, using information beyond scholarly citations alone (e.g. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), PlumX).
Criticisms & Response to Research Impact Measures
Several researcher initiatives are advocating for a shift away from sole reliance on quantitative metrics in research assessment, emphasizing a more holistic and nuanced approach. These initiatives, including the Leiden Manifesto and DORA, highlight the limitations of metrics and call for a greater focus on qualitative assessments, peer review, and the specific context of research disciplines. They aim to promote a more balanced and responsible evaluation of research impact, acknowledging the potential for metrics to be misused or misinterpreted.
While this guide showcases quantitative metrics, it also addresses the limitations to these metrics as a way of supporting a more holistic approach to showcasing research impact.
UBC Context
Defining research excellence is both essential and challenging. While universities strive for a shared understanding of what excellence means, no single definition applies across all disciplines, nor is there a perfectly objective way to measure it. Traditionally, peer review—the assessment of a body of work by other scholars—has been considered the gold standard. However, at UBC and all academic research-intensive institutions, the use of surrogate measures, including grant success, bibliometric indicators such as citation counts, external awards and honours, invitations to present at prestigious conferences, membership in scholarly societies, international collaborations, service on influential committees, and university rankings, typically combine peer review with these indicators to evaluate performance (UBC Research Strategy - Vancouver Campus).
