Bibliometrics as Weapons of Mass Citation La bibliométrie comme arme de citation massive

Abstract

The allocation of resources for research is increasingly based on so-called 'bibliometrics'. Scientists are now deemed to be successful on the sole condition that their work be abundantly cited. This worldwide trend appears to enjoy support not only by granting agencies (whose task is obviously simplified by extensive recourse to bibliometrics), but also by the scientists themselves (who seem to enjoy their status of celebrities). This trend appears to be fraught with dangers, particularly in the area of social sciences, where bibliometrics are less developed, and where monographs (which are not taken into account in citation indexes) are often more important than articles published in journals. We argue in favour of a return to the values of 'real science', in analogy to the much-promised return to a 'real economy'. While economists may strive towards a more objective evaluation of the prospects of a company, a market, or an industrial sector, we scientists can only base our appraisal on a responsible practice of peer review. Since we fear that decision-takers of granting agencies such as the FNRS, CTI, EPFL, ETHZ, ANR, CNRS, NIH, NSF, DOE, [1] etc. will be too busy to read our humble paper in Chimia, we appeal to scientists of all countries and disciplines to unite against the tyranny of bibliometrics.

The Kinship or k-Index as an Antidote Against the Toxic Effects of h-Indices

“…As we mentioned in our earlier paper, [1,2] there seem to be many similarities between classifications in science and ranking in banking, between h-indices and DOW, FTSE and CAC-40 indices.…”

“…And there is indeed an alternative: Very simply, start reading papers instead of merely rating them by counting citations!' It must be feared that this 'darkest omnivoric black hole' will have a bright future… From the abundant harvest of messages received in response to our earlier paper, [1,2] …”

“…Abstract: Inabilingualpaperentitled'Bibliometricsasweaponsofmasscitation-La bibliométrie comme arme de citation massive', [1] recentlytranslatedintoEnglish, [2] wehavearguedthatthecurrentfashionofrankingpeople, papersandjournalsisanythingbutharmless.ThepointwasforcefullysupportedbyRichardErnstinapost-face entitled'TheFolliesofCitationIndicesandAcademicRankingLists.' [3,4] Wereceivedasurprisingnumberofpassionateresponses,suchas'It's written out of my heart '…”

“…For a connoisseur of magnetic resonance, the following ranking is instructive (the numbers [10] can be determined, with some caution, from the ISI data base): M. Karplus (h = 142), K. Wuethrich [11] (2). Obviously, many Nobel prizes [11] would not have been awarded if the Swedish Academy had paid attention to h-indices.…”

Metajournals. A federalist proposal for scholarly communication and data aggregation

“…Openaire) and it is trying to implement it in the Horizon 2020 program, the gap between the tools and the human beingsresearchers, citizen scientists, students, ordinary people -is still wide. The necessity to dictate open access publishing as a man-date for the EU funded research is an obvious symptom of it: there is a chasm between the net and the public use of reason [Kant 1784: 37] as it is customarily understood by academics, between the information treasures made available by sites like Europeana and their actual understanding and usage, and, in some countries, also between a research assessment [Gillies 2011] that relies heavily on the bibliometrics of proprietary, closed access databases (Wok, Scopus) 4 and the very concept of publication -in the etymological meaning of making something public [Guédon 2001;Molinié and Bodenhausen 2010]. Is it just a matter of time?…”