The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart's Law, according to which "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." In this study, we analyzed over 120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal's impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of over 2600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.
One of the best-known and most-used measures to evaluate journals' importance is the impact factor, devised over 60 years ago by Eugene Garfield @cite_28 . The impact factor measures the frequency in which an average article in a journal has been cited in a specific year. Over time, the measure has been used to evaluate institutions, scientific research, entire journals, and individual articles'' @cite_26 . Another common metric to measure a researcher's output or a journal's impact is the h-index, which measures an author's or a journal's number of papers that have at least h citations each @cite_21 . It has been shown that the h-index can predict academic achievements @cite_43 .
@cite_28 @cite_43 @cite_26 @cite_21
2019972219 1978868011 1982218215 2134548949
This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20 , 50 , and 80 of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. An analysis of three major problems in the application of bibliometric research performance indicators is made in three separate sections. In the first section, the influence of field-dependent citation practices is analysed. The results indicate that rankings of publications from different fields, based on citation counts, can be affected seriously by differences between citation characteristics in those fields. If certain assumptions hold, one should expect high (short term) citation levels in Biochemistry, Celbiology and Biophysics. Medium citation levels are to be expected in Experimental and Molecular Physics, Physical and Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology and Plant Physiology, and low citation levels in Mathematics, Taxonomy, Pharmacognosy and Inorganic Solid State Chemistry. In the second section time-dependent factors are studied. It is shown that trend-analyses of output and impact based on bibliometric scores can be disturbed by changes in theSCI-database and in publication and citation practices. One of the disturbing factors is shown to be the inclusion of so called Books into theSCI data-base in 1977. Finally, in the third section a case is presented which illustrates the consequences of operating on incomplete bibliometric data in the evaluation of scientific performance. A completeness percentage of 99 for publication data is proposed as a standard in evaluations of the performance of small university research groups). Bibliometric measures of individual scientific achievement are of particular interest if they can be used to predict future achievement. Here we report results of an empirical study of the predictive power of the h index compared with other indicators. Our findings indicate that the h index is better than other indicators considered (total citation count, citations per paper, and total paper count) in predicting future scientific achievement. We discuss reasons for the superiority of the h index. Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5 or 1 cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.