IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v31y2022i4p475-485..html

‘I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do’: Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Anne K Krüger
  • Sabrina Petersohn

Abstract

The proliferation of quantitative research assessment has been accompanied by an increasing growth and diversification of digital infrastructure for evaluative bibliometrics. Since the beginning of the 2000s, insights into academic performance provided by a variety of new databases and devices significantly exceed the capacities of the former Science Citation Index and embedded metrics. Going beyond the research on the construction, uses, and consequences of bibliometric indicators, we therefore posit that a perspective on bibliometric infrastructure is crucial for understanding how evaluative bibliometrics is put into practice. Drawing on interviews with academic librarians on the increasing provision and implementation of bibliometric infrastructure in the years 2013 and 2014, we analyse how the entanglement of technology and its users shapes how evaluative bibliometrics is understood and practiced.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne K Krüger & Sabrina Petersohn, 2022. "‘I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do’: Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 475-485.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:4:p:475-485.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 596-596.
    2. Sarah Rijcke & Alexander Rushforth, 2015. "To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1954-1958, September.
    3. Chase McCoy & Howard Rosenbaum, 2019. "Uncovering unintended and shadow practices of users of decision support system dashboards in higher education institutions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(4), pages 370-384, April.
    4. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2016. "Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1637-1647, September.
    5. Peter Weingart, 2005. "Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 117-131, January.
    6. Björn Hammarfelt & Alexander D. Rushforth, 2017. "Indicators as judgment devices: An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 169-180.
    7. Torger Möller & Marion Schmidt & Stefan Hornbostel, 2016. "Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2217-2239, December.
    8. Björn Hammarfelt & Gustaf Nelhans & Pieta Eklund & Fredrik Åström, 2016. "The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: Evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 292-305.
    9. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    2. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    3. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    4. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    5. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    6. Katerina Guba, 2024. "Why do sociologists on academic periphery willingly support bibliometric indicators?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 497-518, January.
    7. Jappe, Arlette, 2023. "Mergers between universities and governmental research organizations in the Netherlands and Denmark. Institutional platforms for agricultural transformations," SocArXiv 35kfa, Center for Open Science.
    8. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Orduña-Malea, Enrique & Delgado-Vázquez, Ángel & Gorraiz, Juan & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2024. "Foundations of Narrative Bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    9. Müller, Harry, 2012. "Die Zitationshäufigkeit als Qualitätsindikator im Rahmen der Forschungsleistungsmessung," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    10. Mohammed R. AlShareef & Ibrahim A. Alrammah & Nasser A. Alshoukani & Abdulaziz M. Almalik, 2023. "The impact of financial incentives on research production: Evidence from Saudi Arabia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3067-3089, May.
    11. Wu, Jiang & Ou, Guiyan & Liu, Xiaohui & Dong, Ke, 2022. "How does academic education background affect top researchers’ performance? Evidence from the field of artificial intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    12. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.
    13. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    14. Clemens Blümel & Stephan Gauch, 2021. "Introduction to special issue: quantitative studies of science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9641-9647, December.
    15. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    16. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    17. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    18. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    19. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    20. Power, Michael, 2015. "How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 43-55.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:4:p:475-485.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.