4.2 Article

Indicators as judgment devices: An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation

Journal

RESEARCH EVALUATION
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 169-180

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvx018

Keywords

citizen bibliometrics; economics; biomedicine; judgment devices; Journal Impact Factor; h-index

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2013-7368]
  2. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond: the Swedish Foundation for the Social Sciences and Humanities [SGO14-1153:1]
  3. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [SGO14-1153:1] Funding Source: Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A researcher's 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 indicators, 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 various 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 assess 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 we report is best described as a form of 'citizen bibliometrics'- an underspecified term which we build upon in the article.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available