Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences

Giovanni Abramo · Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo

26 citations0/0 files storedarXiv (Cornell University)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

In benchmarking international research, although publication and citation analyses should not be used to compare different disciplines, scientometrists frequently fail to resist the temptation to present rankings based on total publications and citations. Such measures are affected by significant distortions, due to the uneven fertility across scientific disciplines and the dishomogeneity of scientific specialisation among nations and universities. In this paper, we provide an indication of the extent of the distortions when comparative bibliometric analyses fail to recognise the range of levels of scientific fertility, not only within a given major disciplinary area but also within the different scientific disciplines encompassed by the same area.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2013Assessing the accuracy of the h ‐ and g ‐indexes for measuring researchers' productivity 2014Assessing national strengths and weaknesses in research fields 2019A novel methodology to assess the scientific standing of nations at field level 2016The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities 2021The value of an overseas research trip

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.