5,812 research outputs found
Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: the new challenges'
While scientometrics is now an established field, there are challenges. A closer look at how scientometricians aggregate building blocks into artfully made products, and point-represent these (e.g. as the map of field X) allows one to overcome the dependence on judgements of scientists for validation, and replace or complement these with intrinsic validation, based on quality checks of the several steps. Such quality checks require qualitative analysis of the domains being studied. Qualitative analysis is also necessary when noninstitutionalized domains and/or domains which do not emphasize texts are to be studied. A further challenge is to reflect on the effects of scientometrics on the development of science; indicators could lead to `induced¿ aggregation. The availability of scientometric tools and insights might allow scientists and science to become more reflexive
Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity?
"Bibliometrics", "scientometrics", "informetrics", and "webometrics" can all
be considered as manifestations of a single research area with similar
objectives and methods, which we call "information metrics" or iMetrics. This
study explores the cognitive and social distinctness of iMetrics with respect
to the general information science (IS), focusing on a core of researchers,
shared vocabulary and literature/knowledge base. Our analysis investigates the
similarities and differences between four document sets. The document sets are
drawn from three core journals for iMetrics research (Scientometrics, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and Journal of
Informetrics). We split JASIST into document sets containing iMetrics and
general IS articles. The volume of publications in this representation of the
specialty has increased rapidly during the last decade. A core of researchers
that predominantly focus on iMetrics topics can thus be identified. This core
group has developed a shared vocabulary as exhibited in high similarity of
title words and one that shares a knowledge base. The research front of this
field moves faster than the research front of information science in general,
bringing it closer to Price's dream.Comment: Accepted for publication in Scientometric
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the “laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments
Citations: Indicators of Quality? The Impact Fallacy
We argue that citation is a composed indicator: short-term citations can be
considered as currency at the research front, whereas long-term citations can
contribute to the codification of knowledge claims into concept symbols.
Knowledge claims at the research front are more likely to be transitory and are
therefore problematic as indicators of quality. Citation impact studies focus
on short-term citation, and therefore tend to measure not epistemic quality,
but involvement in current discourses in which contributions are positioned by
referencing. We explore this argument using three case studies: (1) citations
of the journal Soziale Welt as an example of a venue that tends not to publish
papers at a research front, unlike, for example, JACS; (2) Robert Merton as a
concept symbol across theories of citation; and (3) the Multi-RPYS
("Multi-Referenced Publication Year Spectroscopy") of the journals
Scientometrics, Gene, and Soziale Welt. We show empirically that the
measurement of "quality" in terms of citations can further be qualified:
short-term citation currency at the research front can be distinguished from
longer-term processes of incorporation and codification of knowledge claims
into bodies of knowledge. The recently introduced Multi-RPYS can be used to
distinguish between short-term and long-term impacts.Comment: accepted for publication in Frontiers in Research Metrics and
Analysis; doi: 10.3389/frma.2016.0000
A categorization of arguments for counting methods for publication and citation indicators
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with
multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often
change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a
specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for
counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and
compared the result with discussions of arguments for counting methods in three
older studies. Based on the underlying logics of the arguments I have arranged
the arguments in four groups. Group 1 focuses on arguments related to what an
indicator measures, Group 2 on the additivity of a counting method, Group 3 on
pragmatic reasons for the choice of counting method, and Group 4 on an
indicator's influence on the research community or how it is perceived by
researchers. This categorization can be used to describe and discuss how
bibliometric studies with publication and citation indicators argue for
counting methods
- …