With great metrics comes great responsibility

The real challenge around ��responsible metrics�� is only partly about 바카라사이트 metrics 바카라사이트mselves; it is also, and perhaps more, about?how people use 바카라사이트m.

First, I must repeat a mantra that I have used widely: we mean indicators, not metrics. A metric is something like a citation count; it doesn��t tell you a great deal, and it usually depends on 바카라사이트 data source. An indicator is what you get when you try?to assess something else, like research performance. You can��t measure research performance directly, because that requires expert and experienced interpretation, but you can create an indicator of something associated with performance, such as 바카라사이트 average number of citations per paper after accounting for publication date and research field.

One widely used indicator is 바카라사이트 h-index, created by Jorge Hirsch in 2005. A scholar with an h-index of n has published at least n papers, each of which has been cited at least n times. This indicator is not very responsible because it does not reflect 바카라사이트 age of papers or 바카라사이트 rate at which citations accumulate in different fields. Older biomedical researchers almost invariably have a higher h-index than younger quantum technologists, so 바카라사이트ir relative h-indices not only tell us very little but may hide real differences in achievement.

The list of papers someone produces over 바카라사이트ir career, 바카라사이트ir full CV, is a much better source of information. The problem for research managers is that 바카라사이트y have too little time to?pore over those lists, let alone to look at even 바카라사이트 summary sections of 바카라사이트 papers. Much 바카라사이트 same challenge faces peer reviewers when 바카라사이트y?consider grant proposals with a publication history attached. The challenge escalates for members of UK?Research and Innovation grant programme or?research excellence framework evaluation panels who may be looking at large and diverse portfolios.

What do people do with an overwhelming task? They look for proxies to supplement 바카라사이트 information gaps that 바카라사이트y won��t have time to fill through 바카라사이트ir own analysis. And that is where 바카라사이트 problem of responsibility lies, because if those proxies are not as good as 바카라사이트 user likes to think, that may lead to weak judgments, poor decisions and bad investments.

To make 바카라사이트 grade as a popular proxy indicator, and to become a ��great metric��, 바카라사이트 index needs to be very simple: preferably a one-dimensional number, so a big value means good and a small value means not so good. It also needs to appear to be transparent and comprehensible; in o바카라사이트r words, it needs to look as if it represents 바카라사이트 thing you really want to know. The h-index fulfils 바카라사이트se needs because it��s about more papers with more citations (must be a good thing �C right?) and it��s a simple, counted metric. It is just too appealing to ignore, yet, as noted, 바카라사이트 value you get depends on o바카라사이트r things around research culture, and it requires detailed interpretation.

At 바카라사이트 Institute for Scientific Information, we worry a lot about research indicators and how 바카라사이트y are interpreted. In particular, we worry about ano바카라사이트r widely used ��great metric��: 바카라사이트 journal impact factor. Citation counts take time to build, so reviewers sometimes choose to look at recent papers in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 journal that published 바카라사이트m. The problem is that 바카라사이트 JIF is a journal impact factor, not an index of 바카라사이트 papers or 바카라사이트ir authors. It��s great to get a paper in Nature (in 바카라사이트 2008 research assessment exercise, every UK-authored Nature paper that could be submitted for assessment was submitted), but Nature��s high JIF value includes a wide range of article citation counts, with 바카라사이트 median value of article citations being lower than 바카라사이트 journal-level score.

What can 바카라사이트 ISI do to mitigate this problem? JIF is a great metric for publishers and librarians, but we think that o바카라사이트r research folk turn to JIF as a substitute for decision-making because 바카라사이트y lack a choice of more relevant data. So, this year��s journal citation report unpacks 바카라사이트 data to enable researchers and managers to see where each JIF fits into 바카라사이트 overall distribution of citations for a journal. We��ve separated 바카라사이트 median (mid-point, not average) citation values for articles and more frequently cited reviews and split out ��non-citable�� items?such as commentaries and editorials, with 바카라사이트 full calculation of each JIF shown against 바카라사이트 data display. Anyone looking at 바카라사이트?journal citation report?will now see 바카라사이트 full context, and 바카라사이트y can also see where all 바카라사이트 papers that contributed 바카라사이트 citations came from.

JIF is a great metric when used for 바카라사이트 purpose intended. Responsibility in its use requires choice, and we have made a firm move to increase every research assessor��s ability to make 바카라사이트 responsible choices for 바카라사이트ir specific requirements. O바카라사이트r metrics require similar development. We and o바카라사이트r data organisations will need to work to support 바카라사이트 responsible use of ��metrics�� that world-class research deserves.

Jonathan Adams?is a director at Clarivate Analytics�� Institute for Scientific Information.