This paper explores the relationship between author-level bibliometric
indicators and the researchers the "measure", exemplified across five academic
seniorities and four disciplines. Using cluster methodology, the disciplinary
and seniority appropriateness of author-level indicators is examined.
Publication and citation data for 741 researchers across Astronomy,
Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health was collected in Web of
Science (WoS). Forty-four indicators of individual performance were computed
using the data. A two-step cluster analysis using IBM SPSS version 22 was
performed, followed by a risk analysis and ordinal logistic regression to
explore cluster membership. Indicator scores were contextualized using the
individual researcher's curriculum vitae. Four different clusters based on
indicator scores ranked researchers as low, middle, high and extremely high
performers. The results show that different indicators were appropriate in
demarcating ranked performance in different disciplines. In Astronomy the h2
indicator, sum pp top prop in Environmental Science, Q2 in Philosophy and
e-index in Public Health. The regression and odds analysis showed individual
level indicator scores were primarily dependent on the number of years since
the researcher's first publication registered in WoS, number of publications
and number of citations. Seniority classification was secondary therefore no
seniority appropriate indicators were confidently identified. Cluster
methodology proved useful in identifying disciplinary appropriate indicators
providing the preliminary data preparation was thorough but needed to be
supplemented by other analyses to validate the results. A general disconnection
between the performance of the researcher on their curriculum vitae and the
performance of the researcher based on bibliometric indicators was observed.Comment: 28 pages, 7 tables, 2 figures, 2 appendice