Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics
Lutz Bornmann () and
Journal of Informetrics, 2018, vol. 12, issue 3, 598-604
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)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:598-604
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 Dana Niculescu ().