One of the most common uses of metrics is to judge the quality of a research output, an individual researcher or their institution as a whole. In general the higher the metric score of any of these, the better they are considered to be. For example, a paper which has a high number of citations is considered to be good because many other researchers have chosen to cite it in their own work. This feeds into the reputations of both the researcher and their institution who are both considered to be better than their peers if their metric scores are higher.

Many researchers use metrics as a way of choosing where they will aim to publish their findings. Researchers often aim for journals which have high metrics in the belief that this will give their outputs more impact. Whilst this is an important element to choosing where to publish, it should not be the only thing a researcher considers when making their decision.

In light of the increased focus on the performance of higher education institutions and the emphasis on justifying public spending, metrics are increasingly used as a way to benchmark wider institutions. Results from the performance of individual researchers and their work are collated together to demonstrate the impact of the institution as a whole.

Many academic hiring committees look at metrics as part of the hiring or promotion process. The better a researcher is perceived to have done, the more likely that they will be offered a job or something such as tenure. It is also increasingly common to see this type of information being asked for in documentation such as grant applications, potentially having a further impact on the researcher's career.

Of course metrics are also used for their intended purpose of helping libraries and other institutions to decide which titles to stock. The more often researchers publish in or cite a particular title is taken as an indication that this needs to be held locally.