Pros and cons of bibliometrics

Bibliometrics can be useful but they are also contentious. Here we explore their pros and cons:

Pros

They are a quantitative way of measuring your research impact, so are seen as objective
- This also means research impact can be compared more readily than with peer review, which is seen as subjective
The procedure is transparent and results can be reproduced using the same method
They are inexpensive to produce and use
They take relatively little time to produce and use
They are scalable. You can look at bibliometrics on an individual, institutional, national or international level
Some familiarity with bibliometrics may help in relation to the next REF (Research Excellence Framework) as certain REF sub-panels made use of citation data in 2014 and it is expected similar data will be used again in future.

Metrics distinguish between what is cited and what is not cited, not what is necessarily of good quality
- It is perfectly possible for articles to be cited a lot but for negative reasons
Metrics can be gamed i.e. exploited by researchers and journals to artificially boost their bibliometric scores
Some people feel bibliometrics skew research by encouraging people to write papers they think will be cited more, not what is valuable in research terms
Variations between areas of study need taking into account as publication frequency and citation cultures differ
- It is not reasonable, for example, to compare articles from medicine and the arts