Assessing Research Quality: A Critical Look at Journal Metrics

Abstract

The use of journal metrics to evaluate research quality has become increasingly prevalent in academia. However, there is growing concern about the limitations and potential biases of these metrics. This paper provides a critical examination of journal metrics commonly used in academic evaluation, including impact factor, h-index, and altimetric. We discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and explore alternative approaches to assessing research quality that may provide a more nuanced and accurate picture of scholarly impact. Our analysis highlights the importance of considering contextual factors in research evaluation, such as disciplinary differences and the varying publication practices of different research communities. Ultimately, we argue that a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to research assessment is necessary to ensure that academic evaluation processes promote excellence and equity in the scholarly enterprise.