Abstract
Scientific achievement by publishing a scientific manuscript in a peer reviewed biomedical journal is an important ingredient of research along with a career-enhancing advantages and significant amount of personal satisfaction. The road to evaluate science (research, scientific publications) among scientists often seems complicated. Scientist's career is generally summarized by the number of publications / citations, teaching the undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students, writing or reviewing grants and papers, preparing for and organizing meetings, participating in collaborations and conferences, advising colleagues, and serving on editorial boards of scientific journals. Scientists have been sizing up their colleagues since science began. Scientometricians have invented a wide variety of algorithms called science metrics to evaluate science. Many of the science metrics are even unknown to the everyday scientist. Unfortunately, there is no all-in-one metric. Each of them has its own strength, limitation and scope. Some of them are mistakenly applied to evaluate individuals, and each is surrounded by a cloud of variants designed to help them apply across different scientific fields or different career stages [1]. A suitable indicator should be chosen by considering the purpose of the evaluation, and how the results will be used. Scientific Evaluation assists us in: computing the research performance, comparison with peers, forecasting the growth, identifying the excellence in research, citation ranking, finding the influence of research, measuring the productivity, making policy decisions, securing funds for research and spotting trends. Key concepts in science metrics are output and impact. Evaluation of science is traditionally expressed in terms of citation counts. Although most of the science metrics are based on citation counts but two most commonly used are impact factor [2] and h-index [3].