Citation metrics measure the research impact or influence of an individual scientist or research group. Metrics can demonstrate your track record when applying for grants and promotion. Always consider metrics in the context of your discipline. Citation patterns vary in different disciplines and metrics should never be used as the only measure.
Create a unique author identifier if you find it difficult to locate your publications, e.g. if other authors share your name and initials; if there are mistakes or inconsistent use of your name and initials in the database records; if your publications are associated with multiple institutions.
For further information see Researcher Profile
There are a number of metrics that can be used to quantify author impact, e.g. h-index proposed in 2005 by JE Hirsch.
"The index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number greater than or equal to h, is a useful index to characterise the scientific output of a researcher". An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
The example below is an Author Citation h-Index from Scopus, where the author has 21 documents that have been cited at least 21 times by other researchers.
Further information: h-index [Wikipedia]
Author impact, i.e. h-index, will vary depending on the journals indexed by the selected source. The source of the data should be quoted when citing author impact, i.e. h-index 8 (WoS); h-index 20 (Google Scholar).
An author's esteem can be observed in the influence their research has in industry, government policy change or in other benefits to society.
See the Research Excellence Framework (REF 2014 and 2021) United Kingdom for examples of Case studies of impact and engagement.
Use the CRO Impact output form as a research diary. It can be used to record membership of professional or institutional boards, editorial roles, media references; and to document how your research has influenced policy, industry or society.
Australian Research Council (2013) Research impact principles and framework
Clancy, C. M., Glied, S. A., & Lurie, N. (2012). From research to health policy impact.(editorial). Health Services Research, 47(1), 337.
Gilbert, N. (2010). UK science will be judged on impact: Pilot scheme paves way for university research to be awarded on the basis of society benefits. Nature, 468(7322), 357.
Grady, P. A., & Hinshaw, A. S. (2011). Shaping health policy through nursing research. New York: Springer.
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvt021
Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products: A new funding policy by the US National Science Foundation represents a sea-change in how researchers are evaluated.. Nature, 493(7431), 159.
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014) How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations.Scientometrics, 98(1), 487-509.
Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the Impact Factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol, 11(10), e1001675.
Hunt, G. E. (2011). Making sense of bibliometrics.Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 23(2), 80-81.
Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370-379.