I have a complicated relationship with scholarly impact metrics. Every time I update my CV for an external examiner appointment or administrative requirement, I feel that familiar pull to check my h-index. And I can’t deny the small thrill when I see the numbers have crept up – a sign that somewhere in the background, my past work continues to ripple through academic circles.
But here’s the thing that I have to keep reminding myself: these metrics tell us very little about our actual impact as scholars. They measure how often other academics cite our work in their own papers, creating an enclosed system of self-referential validation that rarely extends beyond the ivory tower.
Alternative scholarly impact metrics
Recently, I’ve found myself drawn to different measures of impact – ones that feel more meaningful and aligned with why I became an academic in the first place. When I see download numbers for the In Beta podcast or receive messages from readers who found value in a blog post, these metrics resonate more deeply because they represent real people engaging with and benefiting from my work.
This shift in perspective has prompted me to reconsider what truly matters in my scholarly practice:
- Does my work reach the people who could benefit most from it?
- Am I creating value that extends beyond academic citation circles?
- Are my outputs accessible to those outside traditional academic institutions?
- How am I contributing to meaningful conversations in my field?
The academy’s focus on quantifiable metrics like the h-index isn’t just reductive – it actively shapes behaviour in ways that can distance us from our core purpose as scholars. We end up writing for metrics rather than meaning, chasing citations instead of change.
Return to academic writing
This realisation has led me to step back from traditional academic publishing in recent years, as I’ve found myself focusing more attention on activities like blogging and podcasts. But lately I’ve found myself looking for opportunities to get back into more traditional academic writing. And while I feel ready to return to this kind of writing more regularly, I know it needs to look different. My future scholarly work will explore alternative formats and channels, seeking to engage broader audiences in ways that traditional metrics might never capture.
Creating meaningful impact often means letting go of the comfortable validation that traditional scholarly impact metrics provide. It requires carving out the head space needed to reconnect with our deeper scholarly purpose – the reason we entered academia in the first place.
After all, our value as scholars isn’t found in a number. It lives in the conversations we start, the students we inspire, and the real-world impact we create when we step beyond the constraints of traditional academic metrics.
I am not my h-index. And neither are you.
Leave a comment