2016/09/15 by Loet Leydesdorff, Leydesdorff, Loet, Paul Wouters +3
Decision Sciences · #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.04793
Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h-indices, and total\ncitation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research\nevaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but\nreceive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We\ndistinguish four main stakeholders in these practices: (1) producers of\nbibliometric data and indicators; (2) bibliometricians who develop and test\nindicators; (3) research managers who apply the indicators; and (4) the\nscientists being evaluated with potentially competing career interests. These\ndifferent positions may lead to different and sometimes conflicting\nperspectives on the meaning and value of the indicators. The indicators can\nthus be considered as boundary objects which are socially constructed in\ntranslations among these perspectives. This paper proposes an analytical\nclarification by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in\nbibliometrics which can also shed light on the tension between simple but\ninvalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h-index) and more\nsophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation\npractices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or\nare difficult to interpret.\n