IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i12d10.1007_s11192-021-04039-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

(E-) Valuative Metrics as a Contested Field: A Comparative Analysis of the Altmetrics- and the Leiden Manifesto

Author

Listed:
  • Max Leckert

    (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)

Abstract

This article comparatively analyzes two manifestos in the field of quantitative science evaluation, the Altmetrics Manifesto (AM) and the Leiden Manifesto (LM). It employs perspectives from the Sociology of (E-) Valuation to make sense of highly visible critiques that organize the current discourse. Four motifs can be reconstructed from the manifestos’ valuation strategies. The AM criticizes the confinedness of established evaluation practices and pledges for an expansion of quantitative research evaluation. The LM denounces the proliferation of ill-applied research metrics and calls for an enclosure of metric research assessment. It can be shown that these motifs are organized diametrically: The two manifestos represent opposed positions in a critical discourse on (e-) valuative metrics. They manifest quantitative science evaluation as a contested field.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Leckert, 2021. "(E-) Valuative Metrics as a Contested Field: A Comparative Analysis of the Altmetrics- and the Leiden Manifesto," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9869-9903, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04039-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04039-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04039-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04039-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero‐Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan van Eck & Thed N. van Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. van Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    2. Daniel David & Petre Frangopol, 2015. "The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: a scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2255-2257, December.
    3. Cameron Neylon & Shirley Wu, 2009. "Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
    4. Linda Butler, 2003. "Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 39-46, April.
    5. Stefanie Haustein & Timothy D. Bowman & Kim Holmberg & Andrew Tsou & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(1), pages 232-238, January.
    6. Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad & Leslie Carr, 2006. "Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1060-1072, June.
    7. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    8. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    9. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    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. Lutz Bornmann, 2020. "Bibliometrics-based decision tree (BBDT) for deciding whether two universities in the Leiden ranking differ substantially in their performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1255-1258, February.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    3. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Ganser, Christian & Tekles, Alexander, 2022. "Simulation of the h index use at university departments within the bibliometrics-based heuristics framework: Can the indicator be used to compare individual researchers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    6. Robin Haunschild & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Relevance of document types in the scores’ calculation of a specific field-normalized indicator: Are the scores strongly dependent on or nearly independent of the document type handling?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4419-4438, August.
    7. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    8. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Mahshid Abdoli & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(8), pages 941-953, August.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Richard Williams, 2020. "An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1457-1478, August.
    10. Groen-Xu, Moqi & Bös, Gregor & Teixeira, Pedro A. & Voigt, Thomas & Knapp, Bernhard, 2023. "Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. 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.
    12. Marco Cavallaro & Benedetto Lepori, 2021. "Institutional barriers to participation in EU framework programs: contrasting the Swiss and UK cases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1311-1328, February.
    13. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Jeffrey Demaine, 2022. "Fractionalization of research impact reveals global trends in university collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2235-2247, May.
    16. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    18. Leporia, Benedetto & Geuna, Aldo & Mira, Antonietta, 2018. "Scientific Output of US and European Universities Scales Super-linearly with Resources," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201806, University of Turin.
    19. Shahryar Rahnamayan & Sedigheh Mahdavi & Kalyanmoy Deb & Azam Asilian Bidgoli, 2020. "Ranking Multi-Metric Scientific Achievements Using a Concept of Pareto Optimality," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-46, June.
    20. Fernando García & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2021. "A Multicriteria Goal Programming Model for Ranking Universities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04039-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.