IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v69y2018i7p924-935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Hammarfelt
  • Gaby Haddow

Abstract

While bibliometric indicators, such as the journal impact factor, have long played an important role in many STEM disciplines it has been repeatedly shown that established bibliometric methods have limited use in the humanities. Using a questionnaire on metrics use and publication practices in Australia and Sweden, we tested the assumption that indicators play a minor role among humanities scholars. Our findings show that our respondents use indicators to a considerable degree, with a range of indicators and rankings being employed. The scholars use metrics as part of institutional policy, in CVs and applications, as well as for general promotion of their work. Notable in our results is that a much larger share of researchers (62%) in Australia used metrics compared to Sweden (14%). Scholar's attitudes regarding bibliometrics are mixed; many are critical of these measures, while at the same time feeling pressured to use them. One main tension described by our respondents is between intradisciplinary criteria of quality and formalized indicators, and negotiating these “orders of worth†is a challenging balancing act, especially for younger researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:69:y:2018:i:7:p:924-935
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24043
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24043?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    2. Doussoulin, Jean Pierre & Mougenot, Benoit, 2022. "Mapping mining and ecological distribution conflicts in Latin America, a bibliometric analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Yaşar Tonta & Müge Akbulut, 2020. "Does monetary support increase citation impact of scholarly papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1617-1641, November.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    5. Jordi Ardanuy & Llorenç Arguimbau & Ángel Borrego, 2022. "Social sciences and humanities research funded under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): a long-term assessment of projects, acknowledgements and publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Tatiana Lisitskaya & Pavel Taranov & Ekaterina Ugnich & Vladimir Pislyakov, 2024. "Pillar Universities in Russia: Bibliometrics of ‘the second best’," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 365-383, February.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz & Ganser, Christian & Tekles, Alexander, 2022. "Simulation of the h index use at university departments within the bibliometrics-based heuristics framework: Can the indicator be used to compare individual researchers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    8. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    9. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-30, May.
    10. Daniella Bayle Deutz & Thea Marie Drachen & Dorte Drongstrup & Niels Opstrup & Charlotte Wien, 2021. "Quantitative quality: a study on how performance-based measures may change the publication patterns of Danish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3303-3320, April.
    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. 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.
    13. Song Jing & Qingzhao Ma & Siyi Wang & Hanliang Xu & Tian Xu & Xia Guo & Zhuolin Wu, 2024. "Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 681-704, February.
    14. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    15. Steffen Lemke & Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters, 2021. "Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(6), pages 777-792, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jinfst:v:69:y:2018:i:7:p:924-935. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    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.