Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Metrics which quantify the impact of a scientist are increasingly incorporated into decisions about how to rate and fund individuals and institutions. Several commonly used metrics, based on journal impact factors and citation counts, have been criticised as they do not reliably predict real-world impact, are highly variable between fields and are vulnerable to gaming. Bibliometrics have been incorporated into systems of research assessment but these may create flawed incentives, failing to reward research that is validated, reproducible and with wider impacts. A recent proposal for a new standardised citation metric based on a composite indicator of 6 measures has led to an online database of 100 000 of the most highly cited scientists in all fields. In this perspective article, we provide an overview and evaluation of this new citation metric as it applies to mental health research. We provide a summary of its findings for psychiatry and psychology, including clustering in certain countries and institutions, and outline some implications for mental health research. We discuss strengths and limitations of this new metric, and how further refinements could align impact metrics more closely with wider goals of scientific research.

Original publication




Journal article


Evid Based Ment Health

Publication Date





47 - 51


adult psychiatry, child & adolescent psychiatry, Benchmarking, Bibliometrics, Humans, Journal Impact Factor, Psychiatry