Bibliometrics - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Bibliometrics

The Experts below are selected from a list of 56628 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Lutz Bornmann – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • studying Bibliometrics based heuristics bbhs a new research program on the use of Bibliometrics in research evaluation
    Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2020
    Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann

    Abstract:

    How do decision makers in science use bibliometric indicators and how do they rely on the indicators? Could bibliometric indicators replace the decision makers’ judgments (partly or completely)? Bornmann and Marewski (2019) suggest that these and similar questions can be empirically answered by studying the evaluative use of Bibliometrics within the heuristics research program conceptualized by Gigerenzer, Todd, and ABC Research Group (1999). This program can serve as a framework so that the evaluative usage can be conceptually understood, empirically studied, and effectively taught. In this short communication, main lines suggested by Bornmann and Marewski (2019) are summarized in a brief overview.

  • Bibliometrics based heuristics what is their definition and how can they be studied research note
    Profesional De La Informacion, 2020
    Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann

    Abstract:

    When scientists study the phenomena they are interested in, they apply sound methods and base their work on theoretical considerations. In contrast, when the fruits of their research are being evaluated, basic scientific standards do not seem to matter. Instead, simplistic bibliometric indicators (i.e., publication and citation counts) are, paradoxically, both widely used and criticized without any methodological and theoretical framework that would serve to ground both use and critique. Recently, however Bornmann and Marewski (2019) proposed such a framework. They developed Bibliometrics-based heuristics (BBHs) based on the fast-and-frugal heuristics approach (Gigerenzer; Todd; ABC Research Group, 1999) to decision making, in order to conceptually understand and empirically investigate the quantitative evaluation of research as well as to effectively train end-users of Bibliometrics (e.g., science managers, scientists). Heuristics are decision strategies that use part of the available information and ignore the rest. By exploiting the statistical structure of task environments, they can aid to make accurate, fast, effortless, and cost-efficient decisions without that trade-offs are incurred. Because of their simplicity, heuristics are easy to understand and communicate, enhancing the transparency of decision processes. In this commentary, we explain several BBHs and discuss how such heuristics can be employed in practice (using the evaluation of applicants for funding programs as one example). Furthermore, we outline why heuristics can perform well, and how they and their fit to task environments can be studied. In pointing to the potential of research on BBHs and to the risks that come with an under-researched, mindless usage of Bibliometrics, this commentary contributes to make research evaluation more scientific.

  • spatial Bibliometrics on the city level
    Journal of Information Science, 2019
    Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Felix De Moyaanegon

    Abstract:

    It is very popular in Bibliometrics to present results on institutions not only as tabular lists, but also on maps (see, for example, the Leiden Ranking). However, the problem with these visualisations is that institutions are frequently spatially clustered in larger cities whereby institutions are positioned one above the other. In this Brief Communication, we propose as an alternative to visualise bibliometric data on the city rather than the institution level to avoid this problem.

Gianluca Setti – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Bibliometric Indicators: Why Do We Need More Than One?
    IEEE Access, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gianluca Setti

    Abstract:

    This paper provides an overview of the main features of several bibliometric indicators which were proposed in the last few decades. Their pros and cons are highlighted and compared with the features of the well-known impact factor (IF) to show how alternative metrics are specifically designed to address the flaws that the IF was shown to have, especially in the last few years. We also report the results of recent studies in the bibliometric literature showing how the scientific impact of journals as evaluated by Bibliometrics is a very complicated matter and it is completely unrealistic to try to capture it by any single indicator, such as the IF or any other. As such, we conclude that the adoption of more metrics, with complementary features, to assess journal quality would be very beneficial as it would both offer a more comprehensive and balanced view of each journal in the space of scholarly publications, as well as eliminate the pressure on individuals and their incentive to do metric manipulation which is an unintended result of the current (mis)use of the IF as the gold standard for publication quality.

Lucheng Huang – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • integrating Bibliometrics and roadmapping methods a case of dye sensitized solar cell technology based industry in china
    Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015
    Co-Authors: Xin Li, Yuan Zhou, Lucheng Huang

    Abstract:

    Abstract Emerging industries are attracting increasing attention as they engage in innovation activities that transgress the boundaries of science and technology. Policy makers and industrial communities use roadmapping methods to predict future industrial growth, but the existing bibliometric/workshop methods have limitations when analyzing the full-lifecycle industrial emergence, including the transitions between science, technology, application, and the mass market. This paper, therefore, proposes a framework that integrates Bibliometrics and a technology roadmapping (TRM) workshop approach to strategize and plan the future development of the new, technology-based industry. The dye-sensitized solar cell technology-based industry in China is selected as a case study. In this case, the Bibliometrics method is applied to analyze the existing position of science and technology, and TRM workshops are used to strategize the future development from technology to application and marketing. Key events and impact on the development of the new, technology-based industry have been identified. This paper will contribute to the roadmapping and foresight methodology, and will be of interest to solar photovoltaic industry researchers.