Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences

Abstract

In benchmarking international research, although publication and citation analyses should not be used to compare different disciplines, scientometrists frequently fail to resist the temptation to present rankings based on total publications and citations. Such measures are affected by significant distortions, due to the uneven fertility across scientific disciplines and the dishomogeneity of scientific specialisation among nations and universities. In this paper, we provide an indication of the extent of the distortions when comparative bibliometric analyses fail to recognise the range of levels of scientific fertility, not only within a given major disciplinary area but also within the different scientific disciplines encompassed by the same area.

Cited by in corpus (6)

• How do you define and measure research productivity?
• The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy
• The collaboration behavior of top scientists
• What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance?
• The suitability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics, 97(3), 555-570
• Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity