Bibliometric denialism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2023.e17a11Keywords:
Evaluative bibliometrics, Scientific policy, Peer review, Bibliometric indicators, Dora, CoaraAbstract
This text discusses and denounces the growing trend of "bibliometric denialism," which rejects the utility of bibliometric indicators in scientific evaluation. This denialism is evident in the decision to dispense with metrics, a practice encouraged by the Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora) and, especially, upon the signing of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment promovido promoted by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (Coara). Both advocate for a more qualitative approach, primarily based on peer review. However, we argue that these qualitative approaches have been adopted without considering their limitations and ignoring the principles and methods of evaluative bibliometrics.
References
Hansson, Sven O. (2017). "Science denial as a form of pseudoscience". Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part A, v. 63, pp. 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002
Diéguez-Lucena, Antonio (2022, enero 20). "Negacionismo, anticiencia y pseudociencias: ¿en qué se diferencian?". The conversation, 20 enero. http://theconversation.com/negacionismo-anticiencia-y-pseudociencias-en-que-se-diferencian-174831
Moed, Henk F. (2007). "The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review". Science and public policy, v. 34, n. 8, pp. 575-583. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X255179
Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2022). "1985: Cinco lecciones inmortales de Moed para bibliómetras profesionales". Anuario ThinkEPI, v. 16. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2022.e16a14
