Skip to main content

Bibliometric Services: Learn More

The homepage of the NIH Library's Bibliometric Services Program

The basics

Meho, L. I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20(1), 32-36. 

Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465, 864-866. doi: 10.1038/465864a

Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and Performance (pp. 121-139): Springer International Publishing.

Bibliometrics for evaluation

Hicks, D., & Melkers, J. (2013). Bibliomerics as a tool for research evaluation. In A. N. Link & N. S. Vonortas (Eds.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation (pp. 323-349): Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hicks, D., Tomizawa, H., Saitoh, Y., & Kobayashi, S. (2004). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 76-86. doi: 10.3152/147154404781776446

Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362. 

Moed, H. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575-583. doi: 10.3152/030234207x255179

Sahel, J. A. (2011). Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance. Science Translational Medicine, 3(84). doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249

van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280. 

van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420. 

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure. Measurement, 3(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1207/s15366359mea0301_1

Unintended effects

Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39-46. doi: 10.3152/147154403781776780

Kostoff, R. N., & Geisler, E. (2007). The unintended consequences of metrics in technology evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 103-114. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.002

Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10), 1747-1759. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.002

Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7

Issues and limitations

Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 72-95. 

Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 278-287. doi: 10.1002/asi.20743

Opthof, T. (1997). Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research, 33(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(96)00215-5

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6


Chris Belter
National Institutes of Health Library
Division of Library Services
Office of Research Services
Bldg 10, Rm 1L09G, MSC 1150
10 Center Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
Tel: (301) 451-5861
Website / Blog Page

Ya-Ling Lu

Ya-Ling Lu