Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
- Author(s): Jappe A;Jappe A; Pithan D; Pithan D; Heinze T; Heinze T; Heinze T
- Source:
PloS one [PLoS One] 2018 Jun 14; Vol. 13 (6), pp. e0199031. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jun 14 (Print Publication: 2018).
- Publication Type:
Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Language:
English
- Additional Information
- Source:
Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
- Publication Information:
Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
- Subject Terms:
- Abstract:
The use of bibliometric measures in the evaluation of research has increased considerably based on expertise from the growing research field of evaluative citation analysis (ECA). However, mounting criticism of such metrics suggests that the professionalization of bibliometric expertise remains contested. This paper investigates why impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, proliferate even though their legitimacy as a means of professional research assessment is questioned. Our analysis is informed by two relevant sociological theories: Andrew Abbott's theory of professions and Richard Whitley's theory of scientific work. These complementary concepts are connected in order to demonstrate that ECA has failed so far to provide scientific authority for professional research assessment. This argument is based on an empirical investigation of the extent of reputational control in the relevant research area. Using three measures of reputational control that are computed from longitudinal inter-organizational networks in ECA (1972-2016), we show that peripheral and isolated actors contribute the same number of novel bibliometric indicators as central actors. In addition, the share of newcomers to the academic sector has remained high. These findings demonstrate that recent methodological debates in ECA have not been accompanied by the formation of an intellectual field in the sociological sense of a reputational organization. Therefore, we conclude that a growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
- References:
Dis Model Mech. 2013 Jul;6(4):869-70. (PMID: 23690539)
Science. 1972 Nov 3;178(4060):471-9. (PMID: 5079701)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72. (PMID: 16275915)
PLoS One. 2009 Jun 29;4(6):e6022. (PMID: 19562078)
Eval Rev. 2015 Feb;39(1):102-29. (PMID: 25092865)
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 09;9(7):e101698. (PMID: 25007173)
Science. 1955 Jul 15;122(3159):108-11. (PMID: 14385826)
Scientometrics. 2010 Sep;84(3):575-603. (PMID: 20700371)
Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):429-31. (PMID: 25903611)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8577-82. (PMID: 16723398)
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 24;8(4):e62395. (PMID: 23638064)
- Publication Date:
Date Created: 20180615 Date Completed: 20181231 Latest Revision: 20181231
- Publication Date:
20240829
- Accession Number:
PMC6002049
- Accession Number:
10.1371/journal.pone.0199031
- Accession Number:
29902239
No Comments.