Assessing Research Productivity

A new way of evaluating academics’ research output using easily obtained data

Written byDonna S. Gibson, Craig B. Thompson, and Ushma S. Neill
| 4 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
4:00
Share

It can often be difficult to gauge researcher productivity and impact, but these measures of effectiveness are important for academic institutions and funding sources to consider in allocating limited scientific resources and funding. Much as in the lab, where it is important for the results to be repeatable, developing an algorithm or an impartial process to appraise individual faculty research performance over multiple disciplines can deliver valuable insights for long-term strategic planning. Unfortunately, the development of such evaluation practices remains at an embryonic stage.

Several methods have been proposed to assess productivity and impact, but none can be used in isolation. Beyond assigning a number to an investigator—such as the h-index, the number of a researcher’s publications that have received at least that same number of citations, or a collaboration index, which takes into account a researcher’s relative contributions to his or her publications—there are additional sources of data that should be considered. At our institution, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City, there is an emphasis on letters of recommendation received from external expert peers, funding longevity, excellence in teaching and mentoring, and the depth of a faculty member’s CV. For clinicians, additional assessments of patient load and satisfaction are also taken into consideration by our internal committees evaluating promotions and tenure. Other noted evaluation factors include the number of reviews and editorials an individual has been invited to author; frequency of appearance as first, middle, or senior author in collaborations; the number of different journals in which the researcher has published; media coverage of his or her work; and the number of published but never-cited articles.

Here we propose a new bibliometric method to assess the body of a researcher’s published work, based on relevant information collected from the Scopus database and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This method does not require intricate programming, and it yields a ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Related Topics

Meet the Author

Published In

Share
Illustration of a developing fetus surrounded by a clear fluid with a subtle yellow tinge, representing amniotic fluid.
January 2026

What Is the Amniotic Fluid Composed of?

The liquid world of fetal development provides a rich source of nutrition and protection tailored to meet the needs of the growing fetus.

View this Issue
Human-Relevant In Vitro Models Enable Predictive Drug Discovery

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Stemcell Technologies
Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Beckman Coulter Logo
Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

Unchained Labs

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological's Launch of SwiftFluo® TR-FRET Kits Pioneers a New Era in High-Throughout Kinase Inhibitor Screening

SPT Labtech Logo

SPT Labtech enables automated Twist Bioscience NGS library preparation workflows on SPT's firefly platform

nuclera logo

Nuclera eProtein Discovery System installed at leading Universities in Taiwan

Brandtech Logo

BRANDTECH Scientific Introduces the Transferpette® pro Micropipette: A New Twist on Comfort and Control