Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The bibliometric bandwagon

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

The bibliometric bandwagon : characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. / Jonkers, K.; Derrick, G. E.

In: Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 4, 04.2012, p. 829-836.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Jonkers, K & Derrick, GE 2012, 'The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature', Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 829-836. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22620

APA

Jonkers, K., & Derrick, G. E. (2012). The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 829-836. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22620

Vancouver

Jonkers K, Derrick GE. The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012 Apr;63(4):829-836. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22620

Author

Jonkers, K. ; Derrick, G. E. / The bibliometric bandwagon : characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. In: Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012 ; Vol. 63, No. 4. pp. 829-836.

Bibtex

@article{4cbeee7bfeeb4658a4b2c59cfd2d991d,
title = "The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature",
abstract = "The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glanzel and Schoepflin (1994) first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, 2010; Glanzel, 1996; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, 2010; Lane, 2010; Nature, 2010; van Noorden, 2010; Wallin, 2005). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Gl nzel and Schoepflin's (1994) concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.",
keywords = "RESEARCH PERFORMANCE, SCIENTOMETRICS, INDICATORS, METRICS, bibliometrics, fields and disciplines , scholarly publishing, periodical articles, indicators",
author = "K. Jonkers and Derrick, {G. E.}",
year = "2012",
month = apr
doi = "10.1002/asi.22620",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "829--836",
journal = "Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology",
issn = "1532-2882",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The bibliometric bandwagon

T2 - characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature

AU - Jonkers, K.

AU - Derrick, G. E.

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glanzel and Schoepflin (1994) first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, 2010; Glanzel, 1996; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, 2010; Lane, 2010; Nature, 2010; van Noorden, 2010; Wallin, 2005). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Gl nzel and Schoepflin's (1994) concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.

AB - The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glanzel and Schoepflin (1994) first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, 2010; Glanzel, 1996; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, 2010; Lane, 2010; Nature, 2010; van Noorden, 2010; Wallin, 2005). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Gl nzel and Schoepflin's (1994) concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.

KW - RESEARCH PERFORMANCE

KW - SCIENTOMETRICS

KW - INDICATORS

KW - METRICS

KW - bibliometrics

KW - fields and disciplines

KW - scholarly publishing

KW - periodical articles

KW - indicators

U2 - 10.1002/asi.22620

DO - 10.1002/asi.22620

M3 - Journal article

VL - 63

SP - 829

EP - 836

JO - Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology

JF - Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology

SN - 1532-2882

IS - 4

ER -