Background: In the realm of biomedicine, researchers play a vital role in disseminating their findings through publications and presentations, shaping healthcare practices and outcomes. Bibliometrics, involving quantitative analysis of written materials, aids in evaluating scientific work, with citation metrics guiding researchers towards current trends. Key indicators such as Impact Factor (IF) and citation counts are crucial in assessing scientific validity. Objective: The objective of the article was to delineate scientometric and bibliometric indices and elucidate their significance in assessing and measuring the quality of published papers in scientific journals archived in indexed databases. Methods: This article adopts a descriptive approach, utilizing data from major international portals to analyze citation metrics of scientific papers archived in Scopus and Google Scholar. These platforms are pivotal in quantifying citation metrics such as the H-Index and i10-Index. The authors contribute insights from the field of science editing and scientometrics, highlighting concerns about the quality and impact of scientific research. Results and Discussion: The Stanford bibliometric list serves as a significant tool for assessing global scientific merit. However, concerns arise regarding its data accuracy and interpretation. A symposium convened to address these concerns, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and caution in deploying citation metrics. The list, authored by esteemed academics, offers valuable insights but requires nuanced interpretation. Conclusion: Evaluating scientific standing should extend beyond traditional metrics, considering factors like authorship of textbooks, conference organization, editorial roles, and awards. These additional criteria enrich the assessment process, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of researchers' contributions.
Key words: H-index, Google Scholar Index, Webometrics, AD Scientific Index.
|
