Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Social Construction Of Bibliometric Evaluations

  • Chapter
The Changing Governance of the Sciences

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 26))

Abstract

While national systems of research evaluation vary in many dimensions, they all need to rely on very few methods of evaluating research performance. These methods constitute a crucial interface between the science system and science policy through which information about research is translated into strategic knowledge for policy decisions. They therefore merit specific attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adam, David (2002), ‘The counting house’, Nature, 415, 726-729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldi, Stephane (1998), ‘Normative Versus Social Constructivist Processes in the Allocation of Citations: A Network-Analytic Model’, American Sociological Review, 63, 829-846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Barry (1977), Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barre, R. (1994), ‘Do Not Look for Scapegoats - Link Bibliometrics to Social Sciences and Address Societal Needs’, Scientometrics, 30, 419-424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1994), ‘Scientometrics: new opportunities’, Scientometrics, 30, 455-460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, Peg (2002), ‘A Scrap over Sequences, Take Two’, The Scientist, 16, 13 May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Linda (1999), ‘Who ‘Owns’ this Publication? Problems with assigning research publications on the basis of addresses’, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Colima, México, July 5-8, 1999, pp. 87-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Linda (2001), Monitoring Australia’s Scientific Research: Partial indicators of Australia’s research performance, Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Linda and Martijn S. Visser (2006), ‘Extending citation analysis to non-source items’, Scientometrics, 66, 327-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Brian D. (2005), ‘Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications’, portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Jonathan R. and Stephen Cole (1972), ‘The Ortega Hypothesis’, Science, 178, 368-375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Jonathan R. and Stephen Cole (1973), Social Stratification in Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen and Jonathan R. Cole (1967), ‘Scientific Output and Recognition, a Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science’, American Sociological Review, 32, 377-390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E. (1985), ‘Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science’, Social Studies of Science, 15, 127-153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E. (1989), ‘What Do Citations Count? The Rhetoric-First Model’, Scientometrics, 15, 437-447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, Hans-Dieter (2006), ‘The referee’s comments on Gläser’s criticism’, Scientometrics, 67, 331-333.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFG [Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft] (2004), Empfehlungen zu einer ‘Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe’ (LOM) an den Medizinischen Fakultäten - Stellungnahme der Senatskommission für Klinische Forschung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn: DFG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, Dennis and Hans Chang (1976), ‘Differences in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis’, Social Studies of Science, 6, 247-267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, Eugene (1979), ‘Is Citation Analysis a Legitimate Evaluation Tool?’, Scientometrics, 1, 359-375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. Nigel and Steve Woolgar (1974), ‘Essay Review The Quantitative Study of Science : An Examination of the Literature’, Science Studies, 4, 279-294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. Nigel (1977), ‘Referencing as Persuasion’, Social Studies of Science, 7, 113-122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang (1996), ‘The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology’, Scientometrics, 35, 167-176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang, Sylvan Katz, Henk Moed and Urs Schoepflin (1996), ‘Preface’, Scientometrics, 35, 165-166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang and Henk F. Moed (2002), ‘Journal impact measures in bibliometric research’, Scientometrics, 53, 171-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang and Urs Schoepflin (1994), ‘Little Scientometrics, Big Scientometrics ... And Beyond’, Scientometrics, 30, 375-384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen (2001), ‘Scientific specialties as the (currently missing) link between scientometrics and the sociology of science’, in Mari Davis and Concepción S. Wilson (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, Sydney, Australia, July 16-20th, BIRG, UNSW, pp. 191-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen (2006), ‘Letter to the Editor’, Scientometrics, 67, 327-329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen and Grit Laudel (2005), ‘Advantages and dangers of ‘remote’ peer evaluation’, Research Evaluation, 14, 186-198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoit (2002), The Social Sciences in Canada: What Can We Learn From Bibliometrics?’ Project on the Measurement of the Social Sciences, Working Paper no. 1, Quebec: INRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, Belver C. (1994), ‘Little Scientometrics, Little Scientometrics, Little Scientometrics, Little Scientometrics ... And So on and So On’, Scientometrics, 30, 487-493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, Mary (2000), Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Diana (1999), ‘The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences’, Scientometrics, 44, 193-215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, Oliver (2001), ‘Business Models and the Transfer of Businesslike Central Government Agencies’, Governance: An International Journal of Governance and Administration, 14, 233-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, Bernward and Terry Shinn (2001), ‘A Fresh Look at Instrumentation: An Introduction’, in Bernward Joerges and Terry Shinn (eds.), Instrumentation Between Science, State and Industry, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. Sylvan (1999), Bibliometric Indicators and the Social Sciences, Sussex: SPRU.

    Google Scholar 

  • KNAW [Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen] (2005), Judging research on its merits: An advisory report by the council for the Humanities and the Social Sciences Council, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in Action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1986 [1979]), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit (2005), ‘Is external funding a valid indicator for research performance?’ Research Evaluation, 14, 27-34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet (1989) ‘The Relations between Qualitative Theory and Scientometric Methods in Science and Technology Studies: Introduction to the Topical Issue’, Scientometrics, 15, 333-347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet and Peter van den Besselaar (1997), ‘Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators’, Scientometrics, 38, 155-174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet and Paul Wouters (1996), ‘Quantitative Measuring or Qualitative Understanding: Is it possible to bridge the divide in STS?’ EASST Review, 15, 20-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Nian Cai, Ying Cheng and Li Liu (2005), ‘Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics - A comment to the “Fatal Attraction”‘, Scientometrics, 64, 101-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, Terttu (1994), ‘Are We Longing for the Golden Era Lost or for the One to Come’, Scientometrics, 30, 481-485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, Michael H. and Barbara R. MacRoberts (1989), ‘Problems of Citation Analysis: A Critical Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 342-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, Simon and Mark Considine (2000), The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Eliot (1997), ‘Snipping Away at Genome Patenting’, Science, 277, 1752-1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ben R. and John Irvine (1983), ‘Assessing Basic Research. Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy’, Research Policy, 12, 61-90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, Lokman I. and Kristina M. Spurgin (2005), ‘Ranking the Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 1314-1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miquel, J.F. (1994), ‘Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond’, Scientometrics, 30, 443-445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F. (2002), ‘The impact-factors debate: the ISI’s uses and limits’, Nature, 415, 731-732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F., W.J.M. Burger, J.G. Frankfort and A.F.J. Van Raan (1985a), ‘The Use of Bibliometric Data for the Measurement of University Research Performance’, Research Policy, 14, 131-149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F., J.M. Burger, J.G. Frankfort and Anthony F. J. Van Raan (1985b), ‘The application of bibliometric indicators: important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered’, Scientometrics, 8, 177-203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F., R.E. De Bruin and Thed N. Van Leeuwen (1995), ‘New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications’, Scientometrics, 33, 381-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F. and Eugene Garfield (2004), ‘In basic science the percentage of ‘authoritative’ references decreases as bibliographies become shorter’, Scientometrics, 60, 295-303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Norma (2002), ‘The developing role of departments’, Research Policy, 31, 817-833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988), ‘The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance’, in Anthony J. F. van Raan (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland: Elsevier, pp.193-228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, Anton J. (2006), ‘Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review’, Scientometrics, 66, 81-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillimore, A.J. (1989), ‘University Research Performance Indicators in Practice: The University Grants Committee’s Evaluation of British Universitites, 1985-86’, Research Policy, 18, 255-271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, Andrew (1982), ‘Interests and analogies’, in Barry Barnes and David Edge (eds.), Science in Context. Readings in the Sociology of Science, Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, pp. 125-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie (1997), ‘A Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science’, Social Science Information, 36, 615-640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Jane M. (1994), ‘Back to the Future for Informetrics’, Scientometrics, 30, 407-410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, Uwe (2004), ‘Leistungsbeurteilung von Kollegen als Politikberatung’, in Thomas Brüsemeister (ed.), Die beratene Gesellschaft: Zur gesellschaftlichen Bedeutung von Beratung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 39-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, Uwe (2005), ‘‘New Public Management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation’, Minerva, 43, 361-376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoepflin, Urs and Wolfgang Glänzel (2001), ‘Two decades of “Scientometrics”: An interdisciplinary field represented by its leading journal’, Scientometrics, 50, 301-312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie (1997), Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepeneurial University, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Linda C. (1981), ‘Citation Analysis’, Library Trends, 30, 83-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. and T. Litzenberger (2005), ‘The publication and citation output of German faculties and disciplines based upon SSCI data’, Scientometrics, 65, 29-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, William I. and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1928), The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs, New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Besselaar, Peter (2000), ‘Communication between science and technology studies journals: A case study in differentiation and integration in scientific fields’, Scientometrics, 47, 169-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Besselaar, Peter (2001), ‘The cognitive and social structure of STS’, Scientometrics, 51, 441-460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, Thed N. (2006), ‘The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible’, Scientometrics, 66, 133-154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (1994), ‘Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond’, Scientometrics, 30, 529-531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (1996), ‘Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises’, Scientometrics, 36, 397-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (1998), ‘In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much - Comments on: Theories of citation?’, Scientometrics, 43, 129-139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J.(2000) ‘The Pandora’s Box of Citation Analysis: Measuring Scientific Excellence - The Last Evil?’ in Blaise Cronin and Helen Barsky Atkins (eds.) The Web of Knowledge, Medford, New Jersey: Information Today Inc., pp. 301-319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (2005a), ‘Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods’, Scientometrics, 62, 133-143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (2005b), ‘Reply to the comments of Liu et al’, Scientometrics, 64, 111-112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, Anthony F. J. and Thed N. Van Leeuwen (2002), ‘Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research - Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research’, Research Policy, 31, 611-632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1994), ‘Words and indicators. As scientometrics stands’, Scientometrics, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1996), ‘Some practical aspects of the standardization of scientometric indicators’, Scientometrics, 35, 237-245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, Nicholas (1975), ‘Citation Analysis: A New Tool for Science Administrators’, Science, 188, 429-432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter (2005), ‘Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?’, Scientometrics, 62, 117-131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter, R. Sehringer and M. Winterhager (1988), ‘Bibliometric indicators for assessing strength and weaknesses of West German science’, in Anthony J. F. van Raan (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland: Elsevier, pp. 391-430.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Howard D. (2004), ‘Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities’, Scientometrics, 60, 93-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, Steve (1991), ‘Beyond the Citation Debate: Towards a Sociology of Measurement Technologies and Their Use in Science Policy’, Science and Public Policy, 18, 319-326.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Jochen GläSer Dr. & Grit Laudel Dr.

Authors
  1. Jochen GläSer Dr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grit Laudel Dr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, UK

    Richard Whitley

  2. University of Lancaster, UK

    Jochen Gläser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

GläSer, J., Laudel, G. (2007). The Social Construction Of Bibliometric Evaluations. In: Whitley, R., Gläser, J. (eds) The Changing Governance of the Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation