Benefitting from bibliometry

Abstract

Society has learned that there can be big pay-offs from science. Governments, private companies and funding agencies will therefore want to know whether their investments in research are well placed. As long as scientists ask for funding support, we must accept the right of these agencies to ask for proof of results. Within a department, the evaluation of performance may be one of several incentives for improving scientific quality and productivity. However, used alone, performance evaluation can lead to destructive competition and marginalization of potentially valuable staff members. Used in combination with research organisation and leadership, it may motivate many staff members. Results-based financing within a department should be used carefully. It should follow the setting of a clear research agenda, by the lowest-level leaders, and the organisation of the activity into groups. Only in groups with goals can the full potential of the staff in a department be mobilised to do more and better science.

Ambiguity, Bias, and Compromise: An Abc of Bibliometric-Based Performance Indicators

“…Regardless of whether it is possible to reflect the multiparameter nature of thè importance' of a paper, individual, or group into a single number (Giske, 2008), citation counting or using impact factors will not help committees deal with appraising coauthorship, books, chapters, and other research output as these have fewer quick-fix solutions (Johnston, 2008). Human geographers, in particular, are aware of this (although I hasten to add that the great majority of the issues I have raised here are relevant to all academic disciplines).…”

Bibliometry of marine science and limnology publications (1979-2015) by the Centro de Investigación en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (CIMAR), Universidad de Costa Rica

“…Bibliometrics were useful for analyzing the productivity of a research center such as CIMAR. However, the national, regional and international importance of a research institution cannot be measured exclusively by the number of published papers; other aspects must be considered such as the impact factors of journals, the number of master and doctoral theses defended as well as the teaching and administrative loads of each staff members need to be considered when evaluating university departments (Giske, 2008). Therefore, future studies should include these factors to obtain a more realistic view about the productivity of an academic research center.…”

“…research topics, productivity, as well as interactions between researchers (Fernández, Gómez, & Sebastián, 1988;Russell et al, 2007;Bornmann, Mutz, Neuhaus, & Daniel, 2008). There is, however, a consensus that measuring science and scientific productivity is an extremely difficult or even impossible task (see Giske, 2008 and reference therein) and some argue that these measurements are crude and may harm science (Lawrence, 2008 and references therein). On the other hand, quantitative performance indicators such as bibliometrics are needed to assess research (e.g., Butler, 2008).…”

Understanding And Quantifying The Impact Of Freeman And Medoffs What Do Unions Do? A Quarter Of A Century Later

“…This paper intends to use the current available tools to examine the impact of Freeman and Medoff, without commenting on the quality of the work or the following research, or comparing the work to other works in an attempt to judge it. Giske (2008) notes that bibliometrics, even if skewed due to citation analysis issues, are valuable as a starting point. We agree and will use the methodology afforded us, but without establishing value judgments.…”