Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report

Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h -indices, and total citation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research evaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but receive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We di...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Scientometrics Ročník 109; číslo 3; s. 2129 - 2150
Hlavní autori: Leydesdorff, Loet, Wouters, Paul, Bornmann, Lutz
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.01.2016
Springer Nature B.V
Springer Netherlands
Predmet:
Algorithms
Attribution
Bibliometrics
Careers
Citation analysis
Computer Science
Evaluation research
Hirsch index
Impact factors
Indexes
Indicators
Information Storage and Retrieval
Library Science
Meaning
Translations
Evaluative bibliometrics
Validity
Boundary object
Scientometric indicators
ISSN:0138-9130, 1588-2861
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h -indices, and total citation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research evaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but receive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We distinguish four main stakeholders in these practices: (1) producers of bibliometric data and indicators; (2) bibliometricians who develop and test indicators; (3) research managers who apply the indicators; and (4) the scientists being evaluated with potentially competing career interests. These different positions may lead to different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the meaning and value of the indicators. The indicators can thus be considered as boundary objects which are socially constructed in translations among these perspectives. This paper proposes an analytical clarification by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in bibliometrics which can also shed light on the tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h -index) and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0138-9130
1588-2861
DOI:10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8