Distinctive citation dynamics in vertebrate palaeontology: Benchmarking regional field-normalized evaluation metrics

Bibliometric scrutiny of academic literature is today prevalent and widespread, and in a world of ‘big data’, it is likely here to stay. Benchmarking measures, such as citation counts, H-indices, and journal rankings are increasingly used in research evaluation, yet meaningful application requires field-specific baselines. Currently, no standard bibliometric framework exists for palaeontology, let alone vertebrate palaeontology in Australasia, creating challenges for researchers seeking to contextualize their academic outputs against fair and realistic standards. This study addresses that gap by producing comparative benchmarks for researchers and research publications within the Australasian region (Australia, New Zealand, and surrounds), offering tools that contemporary researchers can use to frame their own career narratives in funding, promotion, and evaluation contexts. Drawing on a manually vetted dataset comprising more than 5500 publications, 176 contemporary researchers, and 50 years of citation history, key metrics were established, including publication volume, citation accumulation, H-index progression, first/sole authorship rates, and publication patterns relative to journal quality ranking. Results show that vertebrate palaeontology in Australasia exhibits distinct bibliometric behaviours compared to broader fields, such as ecology and geosciences, notably a shorter citation lifespan plateauing around 15 years post-publication. These differences highlight how conventional benchmarks drawn from broader fields may misrepresent research performance in vertebrate palaeontology. The field-specific benchmarks developed here provide a more accurate and equitable foundation for assessing scholarly excellence. They offer practical tools for individual researchers framing their track records, for institutions developing fairer evaluation frameworks, and for broader efforts to promote field-sensitive research assessment.
Gilbert J. Price [[e-mail]], School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.

如今，学术文献的文献计量分析（bibliometric scrutiny）已相当普及并得到广泛应用；在“大数据”时代，该研究方法势必长期存续。诸如被引频次、H指数（H-index）与期刊排名等基准评价指标，在科研评估中的应用愈发广泛，但要实现有意义的评估应用，需依托对应学科领域的专属基准。目前，古生物学（palaeontology）领域尚未形成标准化的文献计量分析框架，更遑论澳大拉西亚（Australasia）地区的脊椎动物古生物学（vertebrate palaeontology）领域，这为科研人员依托公平且贴合实际的标准，为自身学术成果确立研究定位带来了挑战。本研究针对这一空白，为澳大拉西亚地区（澳大利亚、新西兰及周边区域）的科研人员与学术成果构建了比较基准，可为当代科研人员在科研经费申请、职称晋升与评估等场景中，梳理自身职业发展轨迹提供实用工具。本研究依托经人工审核的数据集展开分析，该数据集涵盖5500余篇学术成果、176位当代科研人员以及50年的被引历史，最终确立了多项核心计量指标，包括发表总量、被引累积量、H指数演进轨迹、第一/独著作者占比，以及结合期刊质量排名的发表模式。研究结果显示，与生态学、地球科学等更广域的学科领域相比，澳大拉西亚地区的脊椎动物古生物学呈现出独特的文献计量特征：其被引半衰期更短，在发表后约15年左右即进入被引平台期。这些差异表明，从广域学科领域提取的传统基准，可能无法准确反映脊椎动物古生物学领域的科研表现。本研究构建的学科专属基准，可为学术卓越性评估提供更为精准且公平的基础框架。该基准可为科研人员梳理自身学术履历、科研机构构建更公平的评估框架，以及推广适配学科特性的科研评估工作，提供切实可行的工具支撑。吉尔伯特·J·普莱斯 [[e-mail]]，昆士兰大学环境学院，澳大利亚昆士兰州布里斯班，4072。