When Research Metrics Become Targets: A Leadership Perspective

Abstract

Research metrics are deeply embedded in academic life. Publication and citation counts, journal quartiles, h-indexes, university rankings and inclusion in the Stanford/Ioannidis database are used to assess individual researchers, allocate resources, inform recruitment and promotion, compare institutions and communicate academic success. Although these measures provide useful information, they are often reduced to a single value, which masks the underlying elements which contribute to this metric. Moreover, when metrics become targets they shape both institutional and individual behaviour.

This opinion article examines several widely used research metrics and considers how they are interpreted, aggregated and applied. It argues that the central problem is not the existence of metrics, but their use as substitutes for academic judgement and as objectives in themselves.

Six principles are proposed for the responsible leadership of research metrics: transparency, retaining academic judgement, using a basket of evidence, applying disciplinary and career-stage context, anticipating behavioural consequences and reviewing metrics periodically.