Pub Date : 2024-08-09DOI: 10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_343_24
S. Verma, H. Sharma
The “publish and flourish” culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author’s contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research’s quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author’s productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author’s productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today’s rapidly changing academic landscape.
生物医学领域的 "出版与繁荣 "文化导致全球出版物数量增加，给研究人员造成了频繁发表文章的压力。然而，这种重数量轻质量的做法导致文章中列出的作者人数膨胀，引发了作者身份问题，以及欺诈性或掠夺性科学和医学期刊的兴起。为了维护科学研究的公信力，有必要改革发表论文的衡量标准，探索创新的作者贡献评估方法。传统的衡量标准，如发表论文数量，无法反映研究的质量、意义和影响。因此，本观点探讨并强调了不同的指标和新方法，这些指标和方法可以评估作者的生产力和影响力，而不是传统的指标，如 H 指数、i10 指数、FWCI、HCP、ALEF、AIF、AAS、JIF、CNA、奖项/荣誉、引文百分位数、n 指数和 ACI。通过使用多种指标，我们可以确定作者的真实影响力和生产力，而其他指标，如奖项和荣誉、研究合作、研究成果多样性和期刊影响因子等，也可以进一步帮助实现这一目的。准确评估一位作者的生产力和影响力对其学术生涯、所在机构和更广泛的科学界都有重大影响。它还可以帮助资助机构做出明智的决策，改善资源分配，提高公众对科学研究的信任度。因此，在当今瞬息万变的学术环境中，解决这些问题并继续讨论评估和认可作者贡献的最佳方法至关重要。
{"title":"Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author’s productivity and impact in biomedical research?","authors":"S. Verma, H. Sharma","doi":"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_343_24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_343_24","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The “publish and flourish” culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author’s contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research’s quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author’s productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author’s productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today’s rapidly changing academic landscape.","PeriodicalId":507676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","volume":"17 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141925319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：