Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Haddow, G."
  • × author_ss:"Hammarfelt, B."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Hammarfelt, B.; Haddow, G.: Conflicting measures and values : how humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators (2018) 0.00 
    0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 4290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=4290,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4290, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4290)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    While bibliometric indicators, such as the journal impact factor, have long played an important role in many STEM disciplines it has been repeatedly shown that established bibliometric methods have limited use in the humanities. Using a questionnaire on metrics use and publication practices in Australia and Sweden, we tested the assumption that indicators play a minor role among humanities scholars. Our findings show that our respondents use indicators to a considerable degree, with a range of indicators and rankings being employed. The scholars use metrics as part of institutional policy, in CVs and applications, as well as for general promotion of their work. Notable in our results is that a much larger share of researchers (62%) in Australia used metrics compared to Sweden (14%). Scholar's attitudes regarding bibliometrics are mixed; many are critical of these measures, while at the same time feeling pressured to use them. One main tension described by our respondents is between intradisciplinary criteria of quality and formalized indicators, and negotiating these "orders of worth" is a challenging balancing act, especially for younger researchers.
    Type
    a
  2. Haddow, G.; Hammarfelt, B.: Quality, impact, and quantification : indicators and metrics use by social scientists (2019) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=4671,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well-documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices.
    Type
    a