The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful

Posted in Research on January 14th, 2015 by steve

International“Forcing research to fit the mould of high-impact journals weakens it. Hiring decisions should be based on merit, not impact factor, says Reinhard Werner …” (more)

[Nature, 13 January]

Tags: , ,

Sub-Prime Academia: when the bibliometric myths collapse …

Posted in Research on October 5th, 2013 by steve

“Bibliometrics now dominates the academic landscape. Government research resource allocation, measures of academic status and professional development all now depend on a bunch of statistical measures that supposedly track merit …” (more)

[Mark Johnson, Improvisation Blog, 4 October]

Tags: , ,

Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis

Posted in Research on September 13th, 2013 by steve

“Google Scholar, the academic bibliographic database provided free-of-charge by the search engine giant Google, has been suggested as an alternative or complementary resource to the commercial citation databases like Web of Knowledge (ISI/Thomson) or Scopus (Elsevier) …” (more)

[Ciaran Quinn, Research Support Librarian Blog, 13 September]

Tags: , , ,

Strategies for using Bibliometrics

Posted in Governance and administration on February 21st, 2011 by steve

“Evaluation of scientific research is notoriously hard, almost by definition: success means something not done before, but if it was not done before, then how can we evaluate it? We are now seeing everywhere a huge shift in how this is done …” (more)

[Algorithmic Game-Theory/Economics, 20 February]


Bibliometrics, global rankings, and transparency

Posted in Research on June 24th, 2010 by steve

“Why do we care so much about the actual and potential uses of bibliometrics (‘the generic term for data about publications’, according to the OECD), and world university ranking methodologies, but care so little about the private sector firms, and their inter-firm relations, that drive the bibliometrics/global rankings agenda forward? …” (more)

[Kris Olds, GlobalHigherEd, 23 June]

Tags: ,

Article-Level Metrics And The Evolution Of Scientific Impact

Posted in Research on November 18th, 2009 by steve

“Formally published papers that have been through a traditional prepublication peer review process remain the most important means of communicating science today. Researchers depend on them to learn about the latest advances in their fields and to report their own findings …” (more)

[Scholarship2.0, 18 November]


Article-Level Metrics (At PLoS And Beyond)

Posted in Research on June 27th, 2009 by steve

USA“‘Article-Level Metrics at PLoS’ takes the view that readers need some way to measure, or at least indicate, the ‘worth’ (or ‘impact’ etc) of a journal article. With over a million articles published per year it’s impossible to read everything and so filtering tools are needed. Some journals have been experimenting with providing data on online usage, but PLoS is going further than this. We are at the start of a program to provide citations, usage data, social bookmarking activity …” (more)

[Gerry McKiernan, Scholarship 2.0, 26 June]


Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance

Posted in Governance and administration on August 25th, 2008 by steve

“Quantifying the relative performance of individual scholars, groups of scholars, departments, institutions, provinces/states/regions and countries has become an integral part of decision-making over research policy, funding allocations, awarding of grants, faculty hirings, and claims for promotion and tenure. Bibliometric indices (based mainly upon citation counts), such as the h-index and the journal impact factor, are heavily relied upon in such assessments. There is a growing consensus, and a deep concern, that these indices — more-and-more often used as a replacement for the informed judgement of peers — are misunderstood and are, therefore, often misinterpreted and misused. The articles in this ESEP Theme Section present a range of perspectives on these issues. Alternative approaches, tools and metrics that will hopefully lead to a more balanced role for these instruments are presented.” (more)

[Scholarship 2.0, 10 August]

Tags: ,