IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i4p565-578..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Petersohn
  • Thomas Heinze

Abstract

In recent years, the use of quantitative metrics in research evaluation has grown considerably. This article recasts the emergence of evaluative bibliometrics as an academic research field and quantitative research assessment as a field of professional experts in the Netherlands by focusing on one expert organization that has shaped both: the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at the University of Leiden. Based on Abbott’s theory of professions and drawing on a comprehensive data set, including both archival and interview data, we show that the new professional field has been fostered by political actors in the Dutch science policy arena and that expertise was predominantly institutionalized in CWTS as a leading research institute and a provider of bibliometric research assessment services. Since the 2010s, CWTS has been challenged by ready-made bibliometric solutions provided by large database providers and publishing houses that increasingly attract non-experts to perform bibliometric assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:4:p:565-578.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx084
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Staša Milojević & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2011. "The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1933-1953, October.
    2. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2014. "The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 995-1006, May.
    3. Moed, H. F. & Burger, W. J. M. & Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J., 1985. "The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
    4. Godin, Benoit, 2003. "The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 679-691, April.
    5. Sarah Rijcke & Alexander Rushforth, 2015. "To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1954-1958, September.
    6. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    7. Staša Milojević & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2011. "The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1933-1953, October.
    8. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    9. E. C. M. Noyons & H. F. Moed & A. F. J. Raan, 1999. "Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 591-604, November.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    11. Lundberg, Jonas, 2007. "Lifting the crown—citation z-score," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 145-154.
    12. Opthof, Tobias & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 423-430.
    13. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    14. Carola Simon & Paulus Huigen & Peter Groote, 2010. "Analysing Regional Identities In The Netherlands," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(4), pages 409-421, September.
    15. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    16. Jan van Steen, 1995. "S&T indicators in science policy: how can they matter?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 161-166, August.
    17. Musselin, Christine, 2013. "How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1165-1173.
    18. Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "Information metrics (iMetrics): a research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 141-157, April.
    19. Ping Liu & Qiong Wu & Xiangming Mu & Kaipeng Yu & Yiting Guo, 2015. "Detecting the intellectual structure of library and information science based on formal concept analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 737-762, September.
    20. Marc Luwel, 2000. "A Bibliometric Profile of Flemish Research in Natural, Life and Technical Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 281-302, February.
    21. Rigter, Henk, 1986. "Evaluation of performance of health research in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 33-48, February.
    22. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    23. Thed N. van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed, 2012. "Funding decisions, peer review, and scientific excellence in physical sciences, chemistry, and geosciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 189-198, August.
    24. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    2. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Orduña-Malea, Enrique & Delgado-Vázquez, Ángel & Gorraiz, Juan & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2024. "Foundations of Narrative Bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    3. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    4. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    2. Yi Bu & Binglu Wang & Win-bin Huang & Shangkun Che & Yong Huang, 2018. "Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 275-289, July.
    3. Hao Wang & Sanhong Deng & Xinning Su, 2016. "A study on construction and analysis of discipline knowledge structure of Chinese LIS based on CSSCI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1725-1759, December.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    6. Yu-Wei Chang, 2018. "Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1589-1613, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 355-365, August.
    9. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 906-930.
    10. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    11. María Pinto & Rosaura Fernández-Pascual & David Caballero-Mariscal & Dora Sales, 2020. "Information literacy trends in higher education (2006–2019): visualizing the emerging field of mobile information literacy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1479-1510, August.
    12. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    13. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    15. Yuen-Hsien Tseng & Ming-Yueh Tsay, 2013. "Journal clustering of library and information science for subfield delineation using the bibliometric analysis toolkit: CATAR," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 503-528, May.
    16. Zhihui Zhang & Ying Cheng & Nian Cai Liu, 2015. "Improving the normalization effect of mean-based method from the perspective of optimization: optimization-based linear methods and their performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 587-607, January.
    17. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Abhijit Thakuria & Dipen Deka, 2024. "A decadal study on identifying latent topics and research trends in open access LIS journals using topic modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3841-3869, July.
    19. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    20. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.

    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:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:4:p:565-578.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.