As the Internet has enhanced the collection and provision of citation, usage and access metrics, the challenge lies neither in the technology nor the method, but in constructing databases that deliver services of value to the scholar. However, the development of metrics has hitherto been driven by the needs of external research assessment (governments and funders), while publishers and libraries have focused on their own needs (e.g. journal impact and usage factors). Scholars often criticize research assessment and the use of particular metrics as a zero-sum game whose undesirable consequences far outweigh the benefits. However, this is not to be confused with a general prejudice against metrics, which are principally compatible with the scholarly recognition and rewards system. But it does indicate that current metric information services often do not serve the needs of scholars. The question everybody should be asking is: What kind of metric information services would serve scholars? The argument proceeds in six steps. First, the problematic and controversial nature of assessment metrics is discussed. Second, the limited value of current metric information services is outlined. Third, the notion of metrics as research information services is clarified. Fourth, some examples of such services are offered. Fifth, the potential value is sketched from the perspective of a postdoc. Sixth, it is indicated that societies and publishers could begin building more metric information services since tried-and-tested technology and methods are available already.

Objective To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it. Design A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that β amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer’s disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were used to analyse this network. Main outcome measures Citation bias, amplification, and invention, and their effects on determining authority. Results The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants funded by the National Institutes of Health and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding. Conclusion Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of social communication. Through distortions in its social use that include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to generate information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims. Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted methods of social citation.

Can the methods of science be directed toward science itself? How did it happen that scientists, scientific documents, and their bibliographic links came to be regarded as mathematical variables in abstract models of scientific communication? What is the role of quantitative analyses of scientific and technical documentation in current science policy and management? Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics answers these questions through a comprehensive overview of theories, techniques, concepts, and applications in the interdisciplinary and steadily growing field of bibliometrics.

if we really want to develop "some sensible measure of scholarly impact on the social Web" then we have to step back and consider three questions:\n\n * what do we want to measure?\n * what can we measure?\n * how can bring these two things close enough together to create something useful?\nThese two are clearly related, at least in the sense that someone's level of engagement in a community (their connectedness if you like) clearly increases the exposure of their work but is also indicative of the credibility they have within that community. Having said that, my gut feeling is that credibility, at least for the purposes of scholarly communication, can only really be measured by some kind of a peer-review (i.e. human) process.

Browman HI, Stergiou KI INTRODUCTION: Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely Campbell P Escape from the impact factor Lawrence PA Lost in publication: how measurement harms science Todd PA, Ladle RJ Hidden dangers of a ‘citation culture’ Taylor M, Perakakis P, Trachana V The siege of science Cheung WWL The economics of post-doc publishing Tsikliras AC Chasing after the high impact Zitt M, Bassecoulard E Challenges for scientometric indicators: data demining, knowledge flows measurements and diversity issues Harzing AWK, van der Wal R Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis Pauly D, Stergiou KI Re-interpretation of ‘influence weight’ as a citation-based Index of New Knowledge (INK) Giske J Benefitting from bibliometry Butler L Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, Daniel HD Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results Harnad S Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings