To asses the impact of an individual article, citation tracking tools could be used to count the number of times an article has been cited. A citation count can be a useful indicator of the impact of an article, however it will not provide the full picture, and there are a number of disadvantages:
Benchmarking against article from a similar discipline and of a similar age, gives a clearer picture of the impact of an individual article.
Citation impacts normalised by the field indicate how the number of citations received by a publication compares to the average or expected number of citations received by other similar publications. Similar publications are determined by year, type, and discipline. FWCI is calculated using citation data from Scopus.
FWCI can also be used to benchmark a group of outputs. It is one of the metrics that is used by The Times Higher Education World Rankings.
This is another metric for citation impacts normalised but the field, but this time using data from Web of Science.
The % of a group of outputs which are in the global top 1/10/25% most cited outputs.
Many journals provide article-level metrics beyond citation counts.
This data could be used to demonstrate interest in an article immediately after publication, for example.