Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

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

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-1-2-12-20

Full Text:

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!

About the Author

V. S. Lazarev
Belarusian National Technical University
Belarus
Leading Bibliographer of the Scientific Library


References

1. Лазарев В. С., Николайчик В. В. Распределение информации по вопросам гематологии в научных журналах. В: Современные аспекты гематологии. Минск: Наука и техника; 1979. С. 128–133.

2. Тютюнник В. М. Предисловие научного редактора. В: Лазарев В. С. «Цитируемость нобелевского класса» и понятия, выражающие характеристики и свойства цитируемых научных документов. Тамбов; М.; СПб.; Баку; Вена; Гамбург; Стокгольм; Буаке: Нобелистика; 2018. С. 4–6. Режим доступа: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/327574829_Nobel_class_citedness_level_and_the_notions_that_designate_characteristics_and_ properties_of_cited_scientific_documents_Citiruemost_nobelevskogo_klassa_i_ponatia_vyrazausie_harakteristiki_i_ svojstva_c [Дата обращения: 15 мая 2019 г.].

3. Мотылев В. М. Проблемы количественных исследований в библиотечном деле. В: Соколов А. В. (ред.) Проблемы технического перевооружения библиотек. Л.: Ленингр. гос. ин-т культуры им. Н. К. Крупской; 1983. С. 55–69.

4. Лазарев В. С. Учет заказов на копии статей в информационной работе (отклик на статью У.И.Б. Онуигбо). Международный форум по информации и документации. 1986;11(2):40–41.

5. Лазарев В. С. Обращения читателей к научным периодическим изданиям как показатель тематической направленности изданий. В: Киселев А. А. (ред.) Методологические проблемы медицинской информатики и науковедения. М.; 1989. С. 173–186.

6. Scales P. A. Citation analysis as indicator of the use of serials: A comparison of ranked titles produced by citation counting and the use data. Journal of Documentation. 1976;32(1):17–25. DOI: 10.1108/eb0266112.

7. Dhawan S. M., Phull S. K., Jain P. Documentation notes: Selection of scientific journals: a model. Journal of Documentation. 1980;36(1):26–41. DOI: 10.1108/eb026689.

8. Маркусова В. А., Минели Л. Э., Богоров В. Г., Либкинд А. Н. Показатель альтметрики как один из индикаторов научного влияния публикации. Вестник Российской академии наук. 2018;88(9):811–818. DOI: 10.31857/ S086958730001694-1.

9. Глухов В. В., Михайлова Т. И., Михайлов О. В. «Хиршеметрия» научных учреждений Казани: позиции ФГБОУ ВПО «КНИТУ». Вестник Казанского технологического университета. 2015;(2):345–348.

10. Cole S., Cole J. R. Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review. 1967;32(3):377–390.

11. Бредихин С. В., Кузнецов А. Ю., Щербакова Н. Г. Анализ цитирования в библиометрии. Новосибирск: ИВМиМГ СО РАН; НЭИКОН; 2013.

12. Лазарев В. С. Научные документы и их упорядоченное совокупности: цитируемость, использование, ценность. Международный форум по информации. 2017;42(1):3–16.

13. Bradford S.C. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering. 1934;137(3550):85-86.

14. Акоев М. А., Маркусова В. А., Москалева О. В., Писляков В. В. Руководство по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та; 2014.

15. Лазарев В. С., Назаровец С. А., Скалабан А. В. Формирование комплекса библиометрических показателей для оценки университетов Беларуси и Украины. Наука и инновации. 2017;(6):63–67.

16. Roberts R. J. An obituary for the impact factor. Nature. 2017;546:600. DOI: 10.1038/546600e.

17. Lazarev V. S., Nazarovets S. A. Don’t dismiss non-English citations. Nature. 2018;556:174. DOI: 10.1038/ d41586-018-04169-2.

18. Маршакова И. В. Система связей между документами, построенная на основе ссылок: по данным Science Citation Index. Научно-техническая информация. Сер. 2. 1973;(6): 3–8.

19. Ma L., Ladisch M. Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities. Research Evaluation. 2019;rvz008. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvz008.


Review

For citations:


Lazarev V.S. The power of bibliometric illusions over the lazy, the profanation of fruitful ideas and the curse of parabibliometric evaluation of science. Science Editor and Publisher. 2019;4(1-2):12-20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-1-2-12-20

Views: 1149


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)