Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
Research Metrics: Measuring the Influence and Impact of Research
Explains and links to tools for citaiton counting and other "productivity/impact" measures and trends for authors, journals, etc.
Info on policies, finding open access resources, open access publishing, data and educational resources.
Institutional Repository @ UF
Links to Self-submittal tool, collections in UF's Instituional repository, University Archives and Data Curation.
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Shows number of articles cited, either by 1-4 journals, by subject area or my the journal's country of origin within 1-3 year time frame.
Several tools of impact beyond publication and citation counts: Mendeley, Twitter, data sets, slides, etc.
ImpactStory aggregates impact data from these various sources in a single, permalinked report.
PaperCritic lets researchers monitor feedback on their scientific work and review the work of others.
ScienceCard automatically collects citations, download counts, altmetrics for a researcher with a unique identifier.
Crowdometer displays tweeting linking to scientific articles in real time.
ReaderMeter visualizing author- and article-level states based on who's reading what.
Google Scholar Metrics
And a detailed analysis of flaws in this system by a research group in Spain, July-August 2012:http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2012/julio/15_eng.pdf .
Tool (registration required) to discover online impact of your research
Miscellaneous Tips for Different Formats
Altmetrics = a short report of this tool for determining research/publication impact beyond just journal citations
Selecting Journals to Submit To
Publications of possible interest
Be positive about negatives–recommendations for the publication of negative (or null) results
Anton Bespalov, Thomas Steckler, Phil Skolnick. European Neuropsychopharmacology 29 (12) : 1312-1320. Describes a set of criteria that can help scientists, reviewers and editors to publish technically sound, scientifically high-impact negative (or null) results originating from rigorously designed and executed studies. Proposed criteria emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts and communication among scientists (also including the authors of original publications with positive results)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.