Bibliometric differences – a case study in bibliometric evaluation across SSH and STEM

Poul Meier Melchiorsen

22 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Documentation

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

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications. Design/methodology/approach In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability. Findings A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper. Research limitations/implications Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10. Originality/value The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.

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 — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2015Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics 2015Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison 2016A review of the literature on citation impact indicators 2015A review of theory and practice in scientometrics 2009Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics 2011Introducing 'productive interactions' in social impact assessment 1996The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research 2011A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants

Cited by

2022A map of Digital Humanities research across bibliographic data sources

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

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