Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics

Lutz Bornmann () and Werner Marx

Journal of Informetrics, 2018, vol. 12, issue 3, 598-604

Abstract: Bibliometrics plays an increasingly important role in research evaluation. However, no gold standard exists for a set of reliable and valid (field-normalized) impact indicators in research evaluation. This opinion paper recommends that bibliometricians develop and analyze these impact indicators against the backdrop of Popper’s critical rationalism. The studies critically investigating the indicators should publish the results in such a way that they can be included in meta-analyses. The results of meta-analyses give guidance on which indicators can then be part of a set of indicators used as standard in bibliometrics. The generation and continuous revision of the standard set could be handled by the International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics (ISSI).

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Standards; Field-normalized indicators (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157718301937
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:598-604

DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.05.002

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe

More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().