[Sigmetrics] Citizen bibliometrics - an alternative take

Gingras, Yves gingras.yves at uqam.ca
Mon Sep 19 10:18:52 EDT 2016

Hello all

My own contribution to this question will be out at MIT Press in a week or two. Here is a preview:

De : SIGMETRICS <sigmetrics-bounces at asis.org<mailto:sigmetrics-bounces at asis.org>> on behalf of Björn Hammarfelt <bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se<mailto:bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se>>
Date : lundi 19 septembre 2016 02:47
À : "sigmetrics at mail.asis.org<mailto:sigmetrics at mail.asis.org>" <sigmetrics at mail.asis.org<mailto:sigmetrics at mail.asis.org>>
Objet : [Sigmetrics] Citizen bibliometrics - an alternative take

In view of the interesting and important paper on citizen bibliometrics by Leydesdorff, Wouters and Bornman we wish to share our own modest take on this concept. While our account can, and should, be seen as complimentary to the overview provided by the authors above, we also add to the arguments made. In particular our study emphasizes that 'citizien bibliometricans' (in our case researchers using bibliometrics in assessment reports regarding candidates for academic positions) actually modify, construct and deconstruct indicators; they are not passive end-users. Moreover, it's not uncommon that they show to be quite knowledgeable about the strength and weaknesses of particular indicators.

Judging merits in the age of the h-index: Citizen bibliometrics in biomedicine and economics

Bjorn Hammarfelt, Alexander D. Rushforth

Abstract: The number of publications has been a fundamental merit in the competition for academic positions since the late 18th century. Today, the simple counting of publications has been supplemented with a whole range of bibliometric measures, which supposedly not only measures the volume of research but also its impact. In this study, we investigate how bibliometrics are used for evaluating the impact and quality of publications in two specific settings: biomedicine and economics. Our study exposes the extent and type of metrics used in external evaluations of candidates for academic positions at Swedish universities. Moreover, we show how different bibliometric indicators, both explicitly and implicitly, are employed to value and rank candidates. Our findings contribute to a further understanding of bibliometric indicators as judgment devices that are employed in evaluating individuals and their published works within specific fields. We also show how expertise in using bibliometrics for evaluative purposes is negotiated at the interface between domain knowledge and skills in using indicators. In line with these results we propose that the use of metrics in this context is best described as a form of citizen bibliometrics - an underspecified term which we build upon in the paper.

pre-print available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04931

On 16/09/16 08:24, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators<http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04793>

Loet Leydesdorff, Paul Wouters, and Lutz Bornmann

Abstract: 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.

Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04793
** apologies for cross-postings.

Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

SIGMETRICS mailing list
SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org<mailto:SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics

Björn Hammarfelt, PhD
Lektor / Senior lecturer
Bibliotekshögskolan / Swedish School of Library and Information Science
Högskolan i Borås / University of Borås
Visiting scholar at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden University
E- mail:bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se<mailto:mail:bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se>; b.m.s.hammarfelt at cwts.leidenuniv.nl<mailto:b.m.s.hammarfelt at cwts.leidenuniv.nl>
Work: 033-435 40 00
Cell: (0046)-737277921
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20160919/27ea8c94/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list