Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery

Patricia M Davidson, Phillip J. Newton, Caleb Ferguson, John Daly, Doug Elliott, Caroline Homer, Christine Duffield, Debra Jackson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance. Method. A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined. Results. A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact. Conclusions. Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number135812
JournalScientific World Journal
Volume2014
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Bibliometrics
Nursing
Midwifery
ranking
Internet
Social Media
networking
Social Networking
methodology
Publications
evaluation
measuring
Databases
social media
method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Davidson, P. M., Newton, P. J., Ferguson, C., Daly, J., Elliott, D., Homer, C., ... Jackson, D. (2014). Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery. Scientific World Journal, 2014, [135812]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812

Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery. / Davidson, Patricia M; Newton, Phillip J.; Ferguson, Caleb; Daly, John; Elliott, Doug; Homer, Caroline; Duffield, Christine; Jackson, Debra.

In: Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014, 135812, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Davidson, PM, Newton, PJ, Ferguson, C, Daly, J, Elliott, D, Homer, C, Duffield, C & Jackson, D 2014, 'Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery', Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, 135812. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812
Davidson, Patricia M ; Newton, Phillip J. ; Ferguson, Caleb ; Daly, John ; Elliott, Doug ; Homer, Caroline ; Duffield, Christine ; Jackson, Debra. / Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery. In: Scientific World Journal. 2014 ; Vol. 2014.
@article{7b67e3f4316348a784a02c4fc1b5a883,
title = "Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery",
abstract = "Background. Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance. Method. A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined. Results. A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact. Conclusions. Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.",
author = "Davidson, {Patricia M} and Newton, {Phillip J.} and Caleb Ferguson and John Daly and Doug Elliott and Caroline Homer and Christine Duffield and Debra Jackson",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1155/2014/135812",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2014",
journal = "The Scientific World Journal",
issn = "2356-6140",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery

AU - Davidson, Patricia M

AU - Newton, Phillip J.

AU - Ferguson, Caleb

AU - Daly, John

AU - Elliott, Doug

AU - Homer, Caroline

AU - Duffield, Christine

AU - Jackson, Debra

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background. Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance. Method. A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined. Results. A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact. Conclusions. Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.

AB - Background. Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance. Method. A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined. Results. A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact. Conclusions. Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893857000&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893857000&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2014/135812

DO - 10.1155/2014/135812

M3 - Article

C2 - 24550691

AN - SCOPUS:84893857000

VL - 2014

JO - The Scientific World Journal

JF - The Scientific World Journal

SN - 2356-6140

M1 - 135812

ER -