There are metrics on the quality of universities (e.g., rankings) and individual researchers (e.g., Google Scholar), but I found it harder to judge the performance and impact of individual research groups. Although the ranking of the university, departments and the profiles of the leading researchers are clear indicators for the entire group, I was wondering if there are any other good metrics, indicators or properties that indicate the impact and performance of a research group?

  • 3
    How are you defining quality? The quality of a university is often operationalised quite differently from the quality of an individual researcher (e.g. research impact, staff levels, student experience, employment prospects for graduates vs. bibliometrics) – Ian_Fin Aug 10 '16 at 9:52
  • 1
    I'm not sure, I guess that is part of the questions. – dsfgsho Aug 10 '16 at 9:53
  • 1
    You may want to edit the question to include that, although "what makes a research group high quality" seems like it could run foul of the SE rule about avoiding largely opinion based questions. – Ian_Fin Aug 10 '16 at 9:57
  • 3
    What about a meta-H-index: the largest number k so that there are at least k researchers with H-index at least k in the group. As the poet said, "I heard you like H-indices, so I used your H-indices to make a new H-index". – Federico Poloni Aug 10 '16 at 9:58
  • 2
    If this is for your career, I'm not sure how useful it is. There are obvious benefits to affiliating yourself with a high quality institution or high quality individual researchers, but does average group quality really matter much beyond that? Also "research group" is a relatively amorphous concept, and what you measure might be simply based on how the groups have been arbitrarily defined. – user24098 Aug 10 '16 at 10:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.