Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Charting a path between the simple and the false and the complex and unusable: Review of Henk F. Moed, Applied Evaluative Informetrics [in the series Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication, Wolfgang Glänzel, Andras Schubert (eds.)]

Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2017, US$ 50

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ACUMEN. (2014). Guidelines for good evaluation practice with the ACUMEN portfolio. http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/D6.14-Good-Evaluation-Practices.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Anonymous Academic. (2018). Performance-driven culture is ruining research. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/feb/16/performance-driven-culture-is-ruining-scientific-research. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.

  • Bach, J. F. (2011). On the proper use of bibliometrics to evaluate individual researchers. Paris: Institut de France, Académie des sciences. http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/avis170111gb.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018). Measuring individual performance with comprehensive bibliometric reports as an alternative to h-index values. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 33(18), e138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics, 98(1), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffett, W. (1994). Letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway. http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1993.html. Accessed 1 Mar 1994.

  • Clarivate Analytics. (2018). Global state of peer review. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Cole, S. (1989). Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14(1), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahler-Larsen, P. (2011). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, F., Liu, Y. K., Chen, X., & Chen, F. (2018). Rising star evaluation in heterogeneous social network. IEEE Access, 6, 29436–29443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furner, J. (2014). The ethics of evaluative bibliometrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics (pp. 85–107). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Chapter 10 (Perspective on citation analysis of scientists). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1983a). How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Part 1. Current comments, Number 44, reprinted in Garfield, E. (1984). Essays of an information scientist (Vol. 6, pp. 354–362). Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p354y1983.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 1983.

  • Garfield, E. (1983b). How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Part 2. Current comments, Number 45, reprinted in Garfield, E. (1984). Essays of an information scientist (Vol. 6, pp. 363–372) Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p363y1983.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 1983.

  • Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2014). Analysis of co-authorship patterns at the individual level. TransInformação, 26(3), 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Wieland, M., & Gumpenberger, C. (2016). Individual bibliometric assessment at the University of Vienna: From numbers to multidimensional profiles. El Profesional de la Información, 25(6), 9011–9914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarfelt, B., & Rushforth, A. D. (2017). Indicators as judgment devices: an empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jappe, A., Pithan, D., & Heinze, T. (2018). Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice?: A sociological study of reputational control, 1972–2016. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0199031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K., & Rossi, A. S. (1968). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 279–334). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005a). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005b). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2011). The source normalized impact per paper is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2016). Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: the case of two SNIP versions. Scientometrics, 106(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2017a). Applied evaluative informetrics. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2017b). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967–990.

  • Moed, H. F. (2018a). Towards a multi-paradigmatic, value-free informetrics: a reply to Paul Wouters’ book review “The failure of a paradigm”. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 541–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2018b). Alternative approaches to the quantitative assessment of academic research. El Profesional de la Información, 27(2), 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2018c). Responsible use of metrics: An evaluative framework is essential but cannot be grounded in informetric research. Bibliomagician (blog). https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/in-responsible-use-of-metrics-an-evaluative-framework-is-essential-but-cannot-be-grounded-in-informetric-research/. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Moed, H. F. (2018d). Eugene Garfield’s influences on the future of informetrics. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 5 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2018.00005/full. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Moed, H. F. (2018e). Assessment and support of emerging research groups. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(17), fny189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 14(3), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. (2010). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyons, E. C. M., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: a bibliometric study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, P., Tsatsaronis, G., & Varlamis, I. (2017). Detecting rising stars in dynamic collaborative networks. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1975). Science since Babylon. Chapter 8 (Diseases of Science) (enlarged ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43, 1450–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thijs, B., Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2017). Improved author profiling through the use of citation classes. Scientometrics, 111(2), 829–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valéry, P. (1942). Mauvaises pensées et autres. Paris: Collection Blanche, Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Noyons, E. (2017). Bibliometrics for research management and research evaluation: A brief introduction. Leiden: Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). https://www.cwts.nl/pdf/CWTS_bibliometrics.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). The need for contextualized scientometric analysis: An opinion paper. In Ràfols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., Castro-Martínez, E., Woolley, R., (Eds)., Proceedings of the 21st international conference on science and technology indicators, València: Universitat Politècnica de València, pp. 541–549.

  • Wang, Q. (2018). A bibliometric model for identifying emerging research topics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(2), 290–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welpe, I. M., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S., & Osterloh, M. (Eds.). (2015). Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. D., & Vilhena, D. A. (2014). A network approach to scholarly evaluation. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics (pp. 151–165). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (Eds.). (2007). The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildgaard, L. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildgaard, L. (2015). A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in astronomy, environmental science, philosophy and public health in Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 873–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildgaard, L. (2016). A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1055–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P. (2013). Bibliometrics of individual researchers. The Citation Culture (blog), https://citationculture.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/bibliometrics-of-individual-researchers/. Accessed 29 July 2013.

  • Wouters, P., Bar-Ilan, J., Thelwall, M., Aguillo, I. F., Must, Ü., Havemann, F., et al. (2014). Final report summary: ACUMEN (Academic Careers Understood through Measurement and Norms). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/97240/reporting/en. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.

  • Wouters, P., Glänzel, W., Gläser, J., & Rafols, I. (2013). The dilemmas of performance indicators of individual researchers: an urgent debate in bibliometrics. ISSI Newsletter, 9(3), 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics, 61875 Broken Top Drive #1, Bend, OR, 97702, USA

    David A. Pendlebury

Authors
  1. David A. Pendlebury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Pendlebury.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pendlebury, D.A. Charting a path between the simple and the false and the complex and unusable: Review of Henk F. Moed, Applied Evaluative Informetrics [in the series Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication, Wolfgang Glänzel, Andras Schubert (eds.)]. Scientometrics 119, 549–560 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03045-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03045-8

Search

Navigation