Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 21613620

Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance

Overview
Journal Sci Transl Med
Specialties General Medicine
Science
Date 2011 May 27
PMID 21613620
Citations 19
Authors
Jose-Alain Sahel
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Evaluating individual research performance is a complex task that ideally examines productivity, scientific impact, and research quality--a task that metrics alone have been unable to achieve. In January 2011, the French Academy of Sciences published a report on current bibliometric (citation metric) methods for evaluating individual researchers, as well as recommendations for the integration of quality assessment. Here, I draw on key issues raised by this report and comment on the suggestions for improving existing research evaluation practices.

Citing Articles

Self-mentions in design area disciplines: A corpus analysis.

Batres-Prieto V, Abbas A Heliyon. 2025; 11(1):e41200.

PMID: 39816519 PMC: 11732660. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41200.

Bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International as a scholarly journal within the subject category legal medicine.

Jones A Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023; 7:100438.

PMID: 37753217 PMC: 10518441. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100438.

Analyzing author collaborations by developing a follower-leader clustering algorithm and identifying top co-authoring countries: Cluster analysis.

Lin C, Ho S, Chien T, Chou W, Chow J Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(29):e34158.

PMID: 37478228 PMC: 10662898. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034158.

The 95% control lines on both confirmed cases and days of infection with COVID-19 were applied to compare the impact on public health between 2020 and 2021 using the hT-index.

Chuang H, Kan W, Chien T, Tsai C Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(20):e33570.

PMID: 37335720 PMC: 10193847. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033570.

The use of the time-to-event index (Tevent) to compare the negative impact of COVID-19 on public health among continents/regions in 2020 and 2021: An observational study.

Chuang H, Wu H, Chien T, Chou W, Chen S Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 101(49):e30249.

PMID: 36626433 PMC: 9750618. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030249.

References
1.
Kulkarni A, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse J . Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009; 302(10):1092-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307. View
2.
Hirsch J . An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(46):16569-72. PMC: 1283832. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. View
3.
Falagas M, Pitsouni E, Malietzis G, Pappas G . Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2007; 22(2):338-42. DOI: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF. View
4.
Haeffner-Cavaillon N, Graillot-Gak C . The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review assessment. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009; 57(1):33-8. PMC: 3957005. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-009-0004-2. View
5.
Seglen P . Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997; 314(7079):498-502. PMC: 2126010. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497. View