Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

BackgroundThe American Center for Reproductive Medicine's summer internship course in reproductive medicine and research at Cleveland Clinic is a rigorous, results-oriented annual program that began in 2008 to train both local and international students in the fundamentals of scientific research and writing. The foremost goal of the program is to encourage premedical and medical students to aspire toward a career as a physician–scientist. The internship provides participants with an opportunity to engage in original bench research and scientific writing while developing theoretical knowledge and soft skills. This study describes selected survey responses from interns who participated in the 2014 internship program. The objective of these surveys was to elicit the interns' perspective on the internship program, its strengths and weaknesses, and to obtain insight into potential areas for improvement.MethodsQuestionnaires were structured around the five fundamental aspects of the program: 1) theoretical knowledge, 2) bench research, 3) scientific writing, 4) mentorship, and 5) soft skills. In addition, an exit survey gathered information on factors that attracted the interns to the program, communication with mentors, and overall impression of the research program.ResultsThe opportunity to experience hands-on bench research and scientific writing, personalized mentorship, and the reputation of the institution were appreciated and ranked highly among the interns. Nearly 90% of the interns responded that the program was beneficial and well worth the time and effort invested by both interns and faculty.ConclusionThe outcomes portrayed in this study will be useful in the implementation of new programs or refinement of existing medical research training programs.