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.

Who's Citing Me?: Understanding Metrics

Types of Metrics

Interpreting Data and Cautionary Tales

Citation metrics are often criticized as an assessment tool.  The following are some frequently stated concerns:

  • The metric is only as accurate as the information used to generate it, if any publications or citations are excluded the resulting metric will be inaccurate leading to undervaluation.
  • Relying on citation counts for assessment may lead emerging scholars and their works to be undervalued as it often takes several years for a publication to become highly cited.
  • All disciplines and publication types do not receive equal coverage by the citation tools.  Books and international publications are often excluded.
  • Citation counts may include erroneous or negative citations. They may also contain repeated self-citations.
  • Subscriptions to bibliographic databases vary among institutions.
  • It can be difficult to distinguish scholars, particularly those with common surnames, due to a lack of a unique identifier.
  • The purely quantitative approach lacks nuance as it does not consider other ways a scholar may contribute to their field.

The following papers and reports present more detailed perspectives on the appropriate use of bibliometrics: