The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments.

中文翻译：

---

联合分析研究人员对文献计量学，海拔度量和使用度量的隐藏偏好

每年发表的学术文章的数量在稳步增长，通过这些指标衡量出版物影响的数量也在稳步增长。对于可用度量的不断增加的影响如何影响研究人员选择阅读文献的过程知之甚少。我们进行了一项在线实验中的排名实验，其中有247位研究人员参与其中，其中大部分来自社会科学。参与者完成了一系列任务，其中要求他们根据有关六个原型指标的分数对虚拟出版物的预期相关性进行排名。通过应用逻辑回归，聚类分析和调查答案的手动编码，我们获得了有关研究影响力的显着度量标准如何影响我们的参与者阅读哪些科学文章的决策的详细数据。调查的答案表明，研究人员在选择文献时会参考定性和定量特征的组合，而回归分析表明，在定量指标中，引文计数最受关注，其次是期刊影响因子。我们的结果表明，许多研究者对文献计量学和对高度计量学的普遍怀疑持相对乐观的看法。这些发现强调了为研究人员提供有关特定指标局限性的扎实知识的重要性，因为他们似乎在研究人员的日常相关性评估中发挥着重要作用。引文计数最受关注，其次是期刊影响因子。我们的结果表明，许多研究者对文献计量学和对高度计量学的普遍怀疑持相对乐观的看法。这些发现强调了为研究人员提供有关特定指标局限性的扎实知识的重要性，因为他们似乎在研究人员的日常相关性评估中发挥着重要作用。引文计数往往是最受关注的，其次是期刊影响因子。我们的结果表明，许多研究者对文献计量学和对高度计量学的普遍怀疑持相对乐观的看法。这些发现强调了为研究人员提供有关特定指标局限性的扎实知识的重要性，因为他们似乎在研究人员的日常相关性评估中发挥着重要作用。