To intervene or not to intervene; Is that the question? on the role of scientometrics in research evaluation

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1954-1958

  De Rijcke, Sarah ^a   Rushforth, Alexander ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

evaluation; standardization

Indexed keywords

STANDARDIZATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; EVALUATION; MEASUREMENT TOOLS; PERFORMANCE METRICS; QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS; RESEARCH EVALUATION; SCIENTOMETRICS;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84946051552     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23382     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Aksnes, D.W., &, Rip, A., (2009). Researchers' perceptions of citations. Research Policy, 38 (6), 895-905.
2. Buela-Casal, G., &, Zych, I., (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92 (2), 281-292.
3. Butler, L., (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In, H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, &, U. Schmoch, (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389-405). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4. Costas, R., &, Bordons, M., (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (3), 193-203.
5. Cronin, B., (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34 (4), 465-475.
6. Cronin, B., &, Sugimoto, C.R., (2015). Epilogue: The bibliometrics baby and the bathwater. In, B. Cronin, &, C.R. Sugimoto, (Eds.), Scholarly metrics under the microscope: From citation analysis to academic auditing Information Today, Inc. (pp. 933-940).
7. Derrick, G., &, Gillespie, J., (2013). "A number you just can't get away from": Characteristics of adoption and the social construction of metric use by researchers. STI 18th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Berlin.
8. Garfield, E., (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1 (4), 359-375. doi: 10.1007/BF02019306
9. Garfield, E., (1996). Fortnightly review: How can impact factors be improved? BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 313 (7054), 411-413.
10. Garfield, E., (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (1), 90-93.
11. Glänzel, W., (1996). The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics, 35 (2), 167-176.
12. Glänzel, W., &, Schoepflin, U., (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics... and beyond? Scientometrics, 30 (2), 375-384.
13. ISSI Proceedings. (2013). 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. Retrieved from http://issi2013.org/proceedings.html.
14. Jasanoff, S., (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Katz, J.S., (1996). Bibliometric standards: Personal experience and lessons learned. Scientometrics, 35 (2), 193-197.
16. Martin, B.R., &, Irvine, J., (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12 (2), 61-90.
17. Martin, B.R., Nightingale, P., &, Yegros-Yegros, A., (2012). Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41 (7), 1182-1204.
18. Moed, H.F., &, Van Leeuwen, T.N., (1995). Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information's journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (6579), 461.
19. Moed, H.F., &, Van Leeuwen, T.N., (1996). Impact factors can mislead. Nature, 381, 186.
20. Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., &, Schmoch, U., (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Narin, F., (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
22. Nowotny, H., (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30 (3), 151-156.
23. Pontille, D., &, Torny, D., (2013). La manufacture de l'évaluation scientifique. Algorithmes, jeux de données et outils bibliométriques. La Découverte|Réseaux, 177 (1), 23-61.
24. Seglen, P.O., (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 314 (7079), 498-502.
25. Stephan, P.E., (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.
26. STI Proceedings. (2013). Translational twists and turns: Science as a socio-economic endeavor. Retrieved from http://www.forschungsinfo.de/STI2013/download/STI-2013-Proceedings.pdf.
27. Todt, O., &, Luján, J.L., (2014). Values and decisions: Cognitive and noncognitive values in knowledge generation and decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 39 (5), 720-743.
28. Van Raan, A.F.J., (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
29. Van Raan, A.F.J., &, Frankfort, J.G., (1980). An approach to university science policy: A new research-funding system. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 4 (2), 155-163.
30. Vanclay, J.K., (2011). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics, 92 (2), 211-238.
31. Waltman, L., &, Van Eck, N.J., (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology: JASIST, 63 (2), 406-415.
32. Weingart, P., (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62 (1), 117-131.
33. Wouters, P., (1999). The citation culture. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
34. Wouters, P., (2014). The citation: from culture to infrastructure. In, B. Cronin, &, C. Sugimoto, (Eds.) Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 47-66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Wouters, P., &, Costas, R., (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURF Foundation.
36. Wouters, P., Glänzel, W., Glaser, J., &, Rafols, I., (2013, September). The dilemmas of performance indicators of individual researchers-An urgent debate in bibliometrics. ISSI Newsletter.