Every widely used indicator of research capacity measures visibility — and visibility is distributed unevenly across sectors, languages and fields.
An assessment built entirely on those indicators will consistently favour the same sector and consistently understate the others.
What common indicators actually measure
- Publication counts: output in venues that a database indexes.
- Citations: attention within that indexed literature.
- International co-authorship: connection, but not necessarily leadership.
- Patents: only one form of applied output, in fields where patenting is normal.
What they miss
- Applied problem-solving that produced no publication.
- Technical services that keep a sector functioning.
- Training outcomes — where graduates go and what they do.
- Contributions to standards, guidance and regulation.
- Long-term data and collection maintenance.
Better questions for assessing a group
- What have you built or changed that you are most proud of?
- Where do your graduates work now?
- What can you do that few others in the country can?
- What would you build if resourcing were not the constraint?
Interpreting a thin record
- It may reflect coverage, sector, or field norms rather than activity.
- Check by asking rather than concluding from a search.
- Applied and locally focused researchers are most affected.
Using indicators responsibly
- Use them to generate questions, not to reach conclusions.
- Never use them to compare individuals.
- State coverage limits whenever you report a figure.
One thing worth remembering
Ask a group: what can you do that few others in the country can?
It surfaces exactly the capability that indicators miss — the long data series, the field access, the accumulated practical knowledge — and it is the capability that makes a partnership worth having.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
What do capacity indicators actually measure?
Visibility — publication counts measure output in indexed venues, citations measure attention within that literature, and co-authorship measures connection not leadership.
What do they miss?
Applied problem-solving without publication, technical services keeping a sector functioning, training outcomes, contributions to standards and regulation, and long-term data maintenance.
What are better questions?
What have you built or changed that you are most proud of, where do your graduates work now, what can you do that few others can, and what would you build if resourcing were not the constraint.
How should a thin record be read?
As possibly reflecting coverage, sector or field norms rather than activity — check by asking rather than concluding from a search.
Which question surfaces what indicators miss?
What can you do that few others in the country can — it reveals long data series, field access and accumulated practical knowledge.
