Abstract
Recent scientific and economic developments have emphasized the need for objective and operationalized criteria for the evaluation of collective and individual research performance. In this context the present article discusses the possibilities and limitations of bibliometric analysis in the evaluation of psychiatric research. Taking into account recent scientometric knowledge, the potentials and pitfalls of the so called impact factor are critically discussed with respect to its usefulness in the evaluation of psychiatric research performance in Germany. A major criticism arises from the observation that the unreflecting use of the impact factor may overemphasize quantitative aspects to the disadvantage of qualitative aspects of research. This may however lead to unwanted distortions and misjudgements. The critical analysis of the current use of scientometric indices in the evaluation process emphasizes the need for alternative criteria, which should take into account disciplinary as well as national idiosyncrasis. Accordingly, the authors aim to induce and contribute to a discussion process within the scientific community, which may lead to a more appropriate evaluation of psychiatric research performance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
