Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery
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 nurs...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | The Scientific World Journal |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850210651395325952 |
|---|---|
| author | Patricia M. Davidson Phillip J. Newton Caleb Ferguson John Daly Doug Elliott Caroline Homer Christine Duffield Debra Jackson |
| author_facet | Patricia M. Davidson Phillip J. Newton Caleb Ferguson John Daly Doug Elliott Caroline Homer Christine Duffield Debra Jackson |
| author_sort | Patricia M. Davidson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-909162489bce4aa9b5d37c1bcaa63d5d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2356-6140 1537-744X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Scientific World Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-909162489bce4aa9b5d37c1bcaa63d5d2025-08-20T02:09:44ZengWileyThe Scientific World Journal2356-61401537-744X2014-01-01201410.1155/2014/135812135812Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and MidwiferyPatricia M. Davidson0Phillip J. Newton1Caleb Ferguson2John Daly3Doug Elliott4Caroline Homer5Christine Duffield6Debra Jackson7Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Baltimore, MD 21218, USAUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, AustraliaBackground. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812 |
| spellingShingle | Patricia M. Davidson Phillip J. Newton Caleb Ferguson John Daly Doug Elliott Caroline Homer Christine Duffield Debra Jackson Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery The Scientific World Journal |
| title | Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery |
| title_full | Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery |
| title_fullStr | Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery |
| title_short | Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery |
| title_sort | rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT patriciamdavidson ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT phillipjnewton ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT calebferguson ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT johndaly ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT dougelliott ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT carolinehomer ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT christineduffield ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery AT debrajackson ratingandrankingtheroleofbibliometricsandwebometricsinnursingandmidwifery |