In the final analysis citation-based indicators are inferior to effective peer review and even peer review is flawed. It is impossible to accurately measure the value or impact of scientific research and a key task of scientometricians should be to produce figures for policy makers and others that are as informative as it is practical to make them and to ensure that users are fully aware of their limitations. Although the Abramo and D'Angelo (2016) suggestions make a lot of theoretical sense and so are a goal that is worth aiming for, it is unrealistic in practice to advocate their universal use in the contexts discussed above. This is because the indicators would still have flaws in addition to the generic limitations of citation-based indicators and would still be inadequate for replacing peer review. Thus, the expense of the data gathering does not always justify the value in practice of the extra accuracy. In the longer term, the restructuring of education needed in order to get the homogeneity necessary for genuinely comparable statistics would be too expensive and probably damaging to the research mission, in addition to being out of proportion to the likely value of any citation-based indicator.
['Mike Thelwall']
Not dead, just resting: The practical value of per publication citation indicators