Specification uncertainty: What the disruption index tells us about the (hidden) multiverse of bibliometric indicators
arXiv:2406.13367 · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05201-1
Abstract
Following Funk and Owen-Smith (2017), Wu et al. (2019) proposed the disruption index (DI1) as a bibliometric indicator that measures disruptive and consolidating research. When we summarized the literature on the disruption index for our recently published review article (Leibel & Bornmann, 2024), we noticed that the calculation of disruption scores comes with numerous (hidden) degrees of freedom. In this Letter to the Editor, we explain based on the DI1 (as an example) why the analytical flexibility of bibliometric indicators potentially endangers the credibility of research and advertise the application of multiverse-style methods to increase the transparency of the research.
13 pages, 1 table, 1 figure
References in corpus (5)
- Do disruption index indicators measure what they propose to measure? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers
- Consistency and validity of interdisciplinarity measures
- What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature
- Dataset Artefacts are the Hidden Drivers of the Declining Disruptiveness in Science
- A Mathematical Framework for Citation Disruption