"Bibliometric Distortion": The Babblarazzi Are At It Again...

[Loet Leydesdorff]

> I recall the earlier debate.  I hear what you're saying, but disagree
> with the disconnect you imply ('the model is not specified').
> An expert group knows very well the relationship between 
> measurement via
> weighting to model.  Researchers are such an expert group, as are
> financial market makers.
> But your point on THES rankings is well taken.  Excellence 
> does not come
> cheap.  The amount that Harvard earned on its endowment fund last year
> ($5.7 Billion growth) is equivalent to 50 per cent of the entire HEFCE
> grant to all English universities in the same period!
> Sincere regards,
> 
> Jonathan Adams

Yes, everybody entertains a model. However, there is a difference between
models which facilitate and legitimate managerial and political
decision-making and predictive models. How much of the variance in
publication rates can be explained in terms of past citation rates and how
much in terms of prior funding? 

Steven Harnad's proposes to make the ranking the predicted variable. :-)
There is literature about sexism and nepotism in peer review (Wenneras and
Wold, 1997). The advantage of this model would be that the predicting
variables can be manipulated by the academics to a certain extent. 

Best wishes, 


Loet
________________________________

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/