Publication Counting vs Citation Counting in evaluating research

In a previous editorial,l I discussed the use of the Science Citation hufex~ in evaluating research. In this editorial, I am reprinting part of a letter which expressed my reaction to the use of publication counting--which underlies the whole publish-or-perish sYndrome-as a method of evaluating research. Some background may be necessary. In 1963, Hedge suggested that “publication of scientific papers is a key you can use to rate your company’s research productivity. ”z His article in the Harvard Business Review provoked a sPate of letters, 3 some of them rea~onable, but most of them ignoring Hedge’s warning that “this method of analysis should be helpful”, but “used with restraint. ” Also in 1963, Cuadra applied citation counts as a method of evaluating contributions in the field of science information. His reportA provoked as intense a response in the pages of Special Libraries as had Hedge’s elsewhere. Sherrods objected that Cuadra’s study failed to identify the contribution undoubtedly made by administrators responsible for some of the largest and most important governmental and industrial information centers. And he found the ranking of the identified leaders questionable. The ranking put Kent first, followed by Taube, Perry, Luhn and Shera. Among the replies to Cuadra’s study, in addition to Sherrod’s article, was a letter from the late Mort June 2, 1971