The power of bibliometric illusions over the lazy, the profanation of fruitful ideas and the curse of parabibliometric evaluation of science

Abstract

I believe that perversion in modern practice of the evaluation of our scientific performance happen by fault of us, bibliometricians, too, as bibliometricians were negligent and laze about the interpretation of indicators, about conceptions (e.g., “altmetrics,” a term that is devoid of attempts to reflect the nature of the “discipline”; the use of the term “metric” instead of “indicator” as a sign of overvalued diagnostic ambitions) and about terminology (e.g., the use of the terms “value” and “quality”, “usefulness” and “influence” as full synonyms). A bureaucrat–noticing all this in his own way and going into no details – comes to believe in “simplicity”, “obviousness” and “unicity” of bibliometric “diagnostics”. The consequence is “bibliometric illusions”. E.g. 1) “everything can be measured with one number!” (The result is  Hirschmania at the level of planetary psychosis. The Hirsch index acquired the status of a sacred cow among bureaucrats and of a Procrustean bed among scientists – at the same time.); 2) “the conclusions are obvious” (E.g. if the journal is not sufficiently cited, “it is necessary to oblige its authors to give appropriate references in each article”. And if the average good article of the natural science profile has at least 10 references, then this “should be a mandatory minimum norm”. Some of the world’s journals arbitrarily intervene in the structure of citations in the articles they receive! But forcedly falsified references are neither a means of information coupling, nor a bibliometric indicator.); 3) “if the bibliometric indicators adequately reflect the quality of the scientific product, it is necessary to oblige scientists to produce not a scientific product, but the corresponding values of indicators” (Many world’s journals are now looking not for “quality articles”, but for “articles that will not lower our impact factor”. Some methodological features might be mistaken for a consequence of “specific Belarusian (Ukrainian, etc.) conditions”, which “is fraught with the fall of our impact factor.”) As a result, there occurs a profanation of bibliometrics itself. This means of evaluation (which has never claimed the exclusivity of its status!) unwittingly turns into a repressive tool with a maximum claim to the truth of the estimates. At the same time, there is no understanding that it is impossible in principle to predict the reach of a certain value of bibliometric indicators. The use of bibliometric indicators not for their intended purposes automatically makes the evaluation parabibliometric. The power of these trends resembles a curse!