Bibliometric differences: a case study in bibliometric evaluation across SSH and STEM

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications. Design/methodology/approach: In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability. Findings: A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper. Research limitations/implications: Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10. Originality/value: The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Documentation
Vol/bind75
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)366-378
Antal sider13
ISSN0022-0418
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 27 feb. 2019

Fingerprint

Social sciences
social science
mathematics
engineering
evaluation research
science
evaluation
ranking
university teacher
grant
Rights of way
STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)
methodology
Availability
community
performance
Values

Citer dette

@article{3c4c2e9b8a5542b4bc6e55e3204467ba,
title = "Bibliometric differences: a case study in bibliometric evaluation across SSH and STEM",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications. Design/methodology/approach: In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability. Findings: A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper. Research limitations/implications: Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10. Originality/value: The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.",
keywords = "Benchmarking, Bibliometric model, Knowledge frameworks, Research impact, Scholarly communications, Societal impact",
author = "Melchiorsen, {Poul Meier}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1108/JD-07-2018-0108",
language = "English",
volume = "75",
pages = "366--378",
journal = "Journal of Documentation",
issn = "0022-0418",
publisher = "JAI Press",
number = "2",

}

Bibliometric differences : a case study in bibliometric evaluation across SSH and STEM. / Melchiorsen, Poul Meier.

I: Journal of Documentation, Bind 75, Nr. 2, 27.02.2019, s. 366-378.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bibliometric differences

T2 - a case study in bibliometric evaluation across SSH and STEM

AU - Melchiorsen, Poul Meier

PY - 2019/2/27

Y1 - 2019/2/27

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications. Design/methodology/approach: In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability. Findings: A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper. Research limitations/implications: Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10. Originality/value: The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications. Design/methodology/approach: In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability. Findings: A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper. Research limitations/implications: Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10. Originality/value: The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.

KW - Benchmarking

KW - Bibliometric model

KW - Knowledge frameworks

KW - Research impact

KW - Scholarly communications

KW - Societal impact

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056176324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/JD-07-2018-0108

DO - 10.1108/JD-07-2018-0108

M3 - Journal article

VL - 75

SP - 366

EP - 378

JO - Journal of Documentation

JF - Journal of Documentation

SN - 0022-0418

IS - 2

ER -