Moed, H.F.; Luwel, M.; Nederhof, A.J.: Towards research performance in the humanities (2002)
0.01
0.011509455 = product of:
0.04603782 = sum of:
0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04603782 = score(doc=820,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 820, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=820)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper describes a general methodology for developing bibliometric performance indicators. Such a description provides a framework or paradigm for application-oriented research in the field of evaluative quantitative science and technology studies, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It is based on our study of scholarly output in the field of Law at the four major universities in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. The study illustrates that bibliometrics is much more than conducting citation analyses based on the indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), since citation data do not play a role in the study. Interaction with scholars in the fields under consideration and openness in the presentation of the quantitative outcomes are the basic features of the methodology. Bibliometrics should be used as an instrument to create a mirror. While not a direct reflection, this study provides a thorough analysis of how scholars in the humanities and social sciences structure their activities and their research output. This structure can be examined empirically from the point of view of its consistency and the degree of consensus among scholars. Relevant issues can be raised that are worth considering in more detail in followup studies, and conclusions from our empirical materials may illuminate such issues. We argue that the principal aim of the development and application of bibliometric indicators is to stimulate a debate among scholars in the field under investigation on the nature of scholarly quality, its principal dimensions, and operationalizations. This aim provides a criterion of "productivity" of the development process. We further contend that librarians are not infrequently requested to provide assistance in collecting data related to research performance assessments, and that the methodology described in the paper aims at offering a general framework for such activities, and can be used by librarians as a line of action whenever they become involved.
