The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:23:09 -0400

    [ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Ethics In Science And Environmental Politics (ESEP)�

ESEP Theme Section:�The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In
Evaluating Scholarly Performance�+ accompanying�Discussion Forum

Editors:�Howard I. Browman, Konstantinos I. Stergiou
            Quantifying the relative performance of
            individual scholars, groups of scholars,
            departments, institutions,
            provinces/states/regions and countries has
            become an integral part of decision-making
            over research policy, funding allocations,
            awarding of grants, faculty hirings, and
            claims for promotion and tenure. Bibliometric
            indices (based mainly upon citation counts),
            such as the h-index and the journal impact
            factor, are heavily relied upon in such
            assessments. There is a growing consensus,
            and a deep concern, that these indices ?
            more-and-more often used as a replacement for
            the informed judgement of peers ? are
            misunderstood and are, therefore, often
            misinterpreted and misused. The articles in
            this ESEP Theme Section present a range of
            perspectives on these issues. Alternative
            approaches, tools and metrics that will
            hopefully lead to a more balanced role for
            these instruments are presented.

      Browman HI, Stergiou KI�INTRODUCTION: Factors and indices
      are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are
      scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is
      something else entirely�
      ESEP 8:1-3�

      Campbell P�Escape from the impact factor�
      ESEP 8:5-7�

      Lawrence PA�Lost in publication: how measurement harms
      science�
      ESEP 8:9-11�

      Todd PA, Ladle RJ�Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'�
      ESEP 8:13-16�

      Taylor M, Perakakis P, Trachana V�The siege of science�
      ESEP 8:17-40�

      Cheung WWL�The economics of post-doc publishing�
      ESEP 8:41-44�

      Tsikliras AC�Chasing after the high impact�
      ESEP 8:45-47�

      Zitt M, Bassecoulard E�Challenges for scientometric
      indicators: data demining, knowledge flows measurements
      and diversity issues�
      ESEP 8:49-60�

      Harzing AWK, van der Wal R�Google Scholar as a new source
      for citation analysis�
      ESEP 8:61-73�

      Pauly D, Stergiou KI�Re-interpretation of 'influence
      weight' as a citation-based Index of New Knowledge (INK)�
      ESEP 8:75-78�

      Giske J�Benefitting from bibliometry�
      ESEP 8:79-81�

      Butler L�Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics:
      quantitative performance measures in the Australian
      Research Quality Framework�
      ESEP 8:83-92�
      Erratum�

      Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, Daniel HD�Citation counts
      for research evaluation: standards of good practice for
      analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and
      interpreting results�
      ESEP 8:93-102�

      Harnad S�Validating research performance metrics against
      peer rankings�
      ESEP 8:103-107
Received on Tue Aug 12 2008 - 04:29:11 BST