In publication metrics, indicators are key figures based on the number of publications, the number of citations and the publication information. They aim to describe various characteristics of the subject under review, such as productivity, impact and internationality.
It is recommended that indicators are only used to support qualitative expert evaluation. Publication channel metrics should not be used when evaluating an individual researcher or a research group. It is recommended that several indicators are used simultaneously in order to obtain a wide range of information on the subject of the evaluation.
The number of publications can be thought of as an indication of the rate and extent of the scientific publishing activity of the subject of the evaluation. The numbers can be examined from different perspectives, e.g. by university, field of science, year or publication type. When examining the number of publications, it is important to take into account the different publishing practices of different fields of science, for example, in terms of the most commonly used publication types and co-authorship.
For more information on the subject, see the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
Citation impact indicators are based on the number of citations received by publications. The number of citations can be thought of as an indication of the scientific impact of the research presented in the publication. A citation can be a sign of both appreciation and criticism. One of the best known bibliometric indicators is the h-index. However, the h-index may be problematic due to varying publishing and reference practices in different fields of science. The h-index value may vary depending on the database used and it is not comparable between different disciplines.
Field-normalised citation indicators take into account the field of science, the age of the publication and the publication type. The mean number of citations in a citation database (e.g. Scopus) is calculated based on the number of citations received by publications of the same discipline, age and publication type. These mean values are used in normalisation. The aim of normalisation is to enable comparison of publications of different disciplines, age and publication type. Examples of field-normalised citation indicators: Top 10% and Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI).
For more information on the subject, see the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
Author affiliations in publications allow us to examine collaboration between different research organisations as well as between research organisations and companies. Collaboration indicators tell if the publication has been made in collaboration either nationally, internationally or with companies. Examples of collaboration indicators: The number or the proportion of publications with international or corporate collaboration.
For more information on the subject, see the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
Indicators for evaluating journals are based on the number of citations the articles in a journal have received over a given period of time, and the number of articles in that journal.
In line with responsible research evaluation, journal-based indicators should not be used to evaluate an individual researcher or a research group, but they can be useful in evaluating large numbers of publications (universities), or as a tool for choosing a publication channel.
Journal Impact Factor (IF) is one of the best-known indicators for evaluating journals. It is a measure of the average citation frequency of articles published in a journal within a certain time frame. It was originally developed as a tool for journal selection for libraries, not to evaluate the scientific quality of a journal or an article.
Field-normalised journal indicators aim to take into account the field of research and its characteristics to enable comparison between journals from different fields. Examples of field-normalised indicators are SNIP and JCI.
Publication Forum (JUFO) is a national publication channel classification system to support the quality evaluation of scientific publishing activitity. The evaluation is performed by discipline-specific expert panels.
For more information on the subject, see the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
Many international databases include information on the open access status of publications. Examples of open access publishing types are gold OA, bronze OA and green OA. The definitions of openness used by different databases may differ a great deal.
The Ministry of Education and Culture funding scheme for universities grants a coefficient of 1.2 to openly available scientific peer-reviewed publications.
For more information on the subject, see the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
Disciplinary differences and interdisciplinarity should be taken into account when producing and using publication metrics.
The publication indicators to be used in the evaluation should be selected in such a way that they can meet the objectives of the evaluation.
Content related to indicators in the Finnish national guide to publication metrics
The source of this guide is the Finnish national guide to publication metrics (KJMO), which has been produced in collaboration between Finnish publication metrics experts.
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
