IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i1d10.1007_s11192-023-04890-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do sociologists on academic periphery willingly support bibliometric indicators?

Author

Listed:
  • Katerina Guba

    (European University at St. Petersburg)

Abstract

What can explain the variation within the disciplinary communities in expressing the support of metrics in the evaluation of research productivity? The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the attitude to the metrics varies between researchers depending on their academic cultural preferences. We conducted a survey of 1850 Russian sociologists with the range of questions regarding the main divisions of sociology and perceived legitimacy of metrics for evaluating academic work. We found that although the majority of sociologists do not support giving more value to the publications that appeared in international databases, 30% of respondent expressed the positive attitude to this policy. Researchers with the orientation to a global science that was measured by their responses and publication behavior pattern tend to support using metrics in research evaluation, while their counterparts committed to a local academic path are more likely to show a negative attitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Guba, 2024. "Why do sociologists on academic periphery willingly support bibliometric indicators?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 497-518, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04890-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04890-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04890-4
    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/s11192-023-04890-4?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. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    2. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    3. Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5019-5077, June.
    4. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    5. Andrey Lovakov & Anna Panova & Maria Yudkevich, 2022. "Global visibility of nationally published research output: the case of the post-Soviet region," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2643-2659, May.
    6. Mikhail Sokolov, 2021. "Can Russian Research Policy be Called Neoliberal? A Study in the Comparative Sociology of Quantification," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(6), pages 989-1009, July.
    7. Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Correction to: Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5079-5079, June.
    8. Björn Hammarfelt & Gaby Haddow, 2018. "Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(7), pages 924-935, July.
    9. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. van Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2010. "A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(8), pages 1564-1581, August.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Alessandro Caprasecca, 2009. "Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 517-539, June.
    11. Linda Butler, 2003. "Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 39-46, April.
    12. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    13. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    16. Siler, Kyle & Larivière, Vincent, 2022. "Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    18. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. van Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2010. "A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(8), pages 1564-1581, August.
    19. Federico Scarpa & Vincenzo Bianco & Luca A. Tagliafico, 2018. "The impact of the national assessment exercises on self-citation rate and publication venue: an empirical investigation on the engineering academic sector in Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 997-1022, November.
    20. 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.
    21. Liv Langfeldt & Ingvild Reymert & Dag W Aksnes, 2021. "The role of metrics in peer assessments [How Incentives Trickle down: Local Use of a National Bibliometric Indicator System]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 112-126.
    22. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Gualberto Buela-Casal & Izabela Zych, 2012. "What do the scientists think about the impact factor?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 281-292, August.
    25. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    26. Olga Moskaleva & Vladimir Pislyakov & Ivan Sterligov & Mark Akoev & Svetlana Shabanova, 2018. "Russian Index of Science Citation: Overview and review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 449-462, July.
    27. Jakub Krzeski & Krystian Szadkowski & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2022. "Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 410-422.
    28. repec:plo:pone00:0221212 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. Dejan Pajić, 2015. "Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2131-2150, March.
    30. Aliakbar Akbaritabar & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "The conundrum of research productivity: a study on sociologists in Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 859-882, March.
    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. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Myroslava Hladchenko, 2023. "Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4589-4609, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Andrey Lovakov & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2025. "Scientometric indicators in research evaluation and research misconduct: analysis of the Russian university excellence initiative," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1813-1829, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2024. "Opium in science and society: numbers and other quantifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5313-5346, September.
    7. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu, 2021. "The citation impact of articles from which authors gained monetary rewards based on journal metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4941-4974, June.
    8. Leonid Gokhberg & Tatiana Kuznetsova & Maxim Kotsemir, 2023. "From the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation: publication activity dynamics along the evolution of national science policies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6195-6246, November.
    9. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2012. "The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 155-168.
    11. Andrei V. Grinëv & Daria S. Bylieva & Victoria V. Lobatyuk, 2021. "Russian University Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientometrics," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Migheli, Matteo & Zotti, Roberto, 2020. "The strange case of the Matthew effect and beauty contests: Research evaluation and specialisation in Italian universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    14. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2014. "The skewness of scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 917-934.
    16. Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "Skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity: a research program for the empirical analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2455-2468, April.
    17. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    18. Daria Gerashchenko, 2024. "Research topic switch and its relation to appointment as university leader," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1841-1862, March.
    19. Johann Jacob & Moktar Lamari, 2012. "Factors Influencing Research Performance in Higher Education: An Empirical Investigation," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 6(3), pages 40-49.
    20. Myroslava Hladchenko, 2025. "Ukrainian universities in QS World University Rankings: when the means become ends," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 969-997, 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:129:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04890-4. 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.