| 1. |
-
23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy 2018 Book of abstracts
- 2018
-
Editorial proceedings (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Initiated by Professors Olle Persson and Peter Ingwersen, bibliometric researchers in the Nordic countries have arranged annual Nordic workshops on bibliometrics since 1996. The general scope of the Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy is to present recent bibliometric research in the Nordic countries, to create better linkages between the bibliometric research groups and their PhD students, and to link bibliometric research with research policy.The workshop language is English and the workshop is open to participants from any nation. The 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy (NWB’2018) was organized by the Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS) at University of Borås, Sweden. It was held at University of Borås, on November 7-9th, 2018 with 100 participants.In total, we received 35 submissions. After reviewing the submissions, the program committee decided which papers were to be presented orally and which as poster presentations. 21 papers were accepted as oral presentations. These, as well as the titles of the two invited keynote talks and the abstracts of 9 posters, are presented as abstracts in these proceedings. The posters and oral presentation slides are also available for viewing and peer-feedback at figshare (with citable DOIs):https://doi.orgWe would like to thank all authors for their submissions, the session chairs and the keynote speakers, Fredrik Åström and Merle Jacob, for their contributions to the workshop and the student volunteers, for their diligent efforts during the workshop. Further, we would like to thank the sponsors for their generous financial support, without which the Nordic workshops could not be organised in their current form.The NWB’2017 website is at https://hb.se/nwb2018Follow on twitter as @nwb_2018 and #nwb2018
|
|
| 2. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-, et al.
(author)
-
Conflicting Measures and Values : How Humanities Scholars in Australia and Sweden Use and React to Bibliometric Indicators
- 2018
-
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. - : Wiley. - 2330-1635 .- 2330-1643. ; 69:7, s. 924-935
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-
(author)
-
Following the Footnotes : A Bibliometric Analysis of Citation Patterns in Literary Studies
- 2012
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This thesis provides an in-depth study of the possibilities of applying bibliometric methods to the research field of literary studies. The four articles that constitute the backbone of this thesis focus on different aspects of references and citations in literary studies: from the use of references in the text to citation patterns among 34 literature journals. The analysis covers both an Anglo-Saxon context as well as research in Swedish literary studies, and the materials used include Web of Science data, references in the Swedish literature journal TFL (Tidskrift för Litteraturvetenskap) and applications to the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet). A study is also made of the influence of one single publication—Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations—and its impact in literary studies and in wider academia.The results from the four articles are elaborated upon using a theoretical framework that focuses on differences in the social and intellectual organization of research fields. According to these theories literary studies can be described as a fragmented, heterogenic, interdisciplinary and ‘rural’ field with a diverse audience. The fragmented and rural organization of the field is reflected in low citation frequencies as well as in the difficulties in discerning research specialities in co-citation mappings, while the analysis of the intellectual base (highly cited authors) is an example of the heterogenic and interdisciplinary character of the field, as it includes authors from many fields across the humanities and the social sciences.The thesis emphasizes that bibliometric studies of research fields in the humanities need to incorporate non-English and non-journal publications in order to produce valid and fair results. Moreover, bibliometric methods must be modified in accordance with the organization of research in a particular field, and differences in referencing practices and citation patterns ought to be considered. Consequently, it is advised that bibliometric measures for evaluating research in these fields should, if used at all, be applied with great caution.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-
(author)
-
Four Claims on Research Assessment and Metric Use in the Humanities
- 2017
-
In: Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. - 1931-6550 .- 1550-8366. ; 43:5, s. 33-38
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Bibliometric evaluation for research in the field of sciences can be a good way toassess the quality and factual basis of claims and can lead to more funding forauthors and for research work. However, due to the more diverse fields covered, thistype of evaluation is less effective in the world of humanities. Many professionalsand researchers in humanities fields believe that bibliometric evaluation is meantonly for STEM research and can’t properly assess any findings made in humanities.Four common claims made about bibliometrics in humanities are that bibliometricsdo not adequately cover the non-uniform nature of humanities; greater bibliometriccoverage will not solve all the research problems in humanities subjects; metrics usealready has an impact on humanities research practices and finally; other evaluationmethods, like altmetrics, are conventional.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-, et al.
(author)
-
From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities : University Rankings as Calculative Devices
- 2017
-
In: Minerva. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0026-4695 .- 1573-1871. ; 55:4, s. 391-411
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Global university rankings have become increasingly important ‘calculative devices’ for assessing the ‘quality’ of higher education and research. Their ability to make characteristics of universities ‘calculable’ is here exemplified by the first proper university ranking ever, produced as early as 1910 by the American psychologist James McKeen Cattell. Our paper links the epistemological rationales behind the construction of this ranking to the sociopolitical context in which Cattell operated: an era in which psychology became institutionalized against the backdrop of the eugenics movement, and in which statistics of science became used to counter a perceived decline in ‘great men.’ Over time, however, the ‘eminent man,’ shaped foremost by heredity and upbringing, came to be replaced by the excellent university as the emblematic symbol of scientific and intellectual strength. We also show that Cattell’s ranking was generative of new forms of the social, traces of which can still be found today in the enactment of ‘excellence’ in global university rankings.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-, et al.
(author)
-
Indicators as judgment devices : An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation
- 2017
-
In: Research Evaluation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0958-2029 .- 1471-5449. ; 3:1, s. 169-180
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A researcher’s number of publications has been a fundamental merit in the competition for academic positions since the late 18th century. Today, the simple counting of publications has been supplemented with a whole range of bibliometric indicators, which supposedly not only measures the volume of research but also its impact. In this study, we investigate how bibliometrics are used for evaluating the impact and quality of publications in two specific settings: biomedicine and economics. Our study exposes the various metrics used in external evaluations of candidates for academic positions at Swedish universities. Moreover, we show how different bibliometric indicators, both explicitly and implicitly, are employed to assess and rank candidates. Our findings contribute to a further understanding of bibliometric indicators as ‘judgment devices’ that are employed in evaluating individuals and their published works within specific fields. We also show how ‘expertise’ in using bibliometrics for evaluative purposes is negotiated at the interface between domain knowledge and skills in using indicators. In line with these results, we propose that the use of metrics we report is best described as a form of ‘citizen bibliometrics’—an underspecified term which we build upon in the article.
|
|
| 8. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-
(author)
-
Recognition and reward in the academy : Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history
- 2017
-
In: Aslib Journal of Information Management. - 2050-3806 .- 2050-3814. ; 69:5, s. 607-623
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose – The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, howpublications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach – Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.Findings – All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.Research limitations/implications – The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.Originality/value – This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of evaluation.
|
|
| 9. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-, et al.
(author)
-
Scientific publications as boundary objects : theorising the intersection of classification and research evaluation
- 2017
-
In: Information research. - Borås : University of Borås. - 1368-1613. ; 22:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction. When using bibliometrics for research evaluation, the classification of research fields is an issue of great importance. The purpose of this paper is to outline a brief theoretical framework for analysing the role of classification in research evaluation practices. Theory. Taking departure in the concept of ‘boundary objects’ we develop a theoretical framework for analyses of how scientific publications negotiate between different social worlds. Moreover, by adding the perspective of large evaluative infrastructures our study seeks to highlight tensions between local practices and global standards. Empirical example. One scientific article was analysed in terms of the different ways it can be classified on author and affiliation levels, on a documental level, and on a bureaucratic level. Discussion. Publications are boundary objects residing between social worlds: the context of communication and the context of evaluation. Tensions between social worlds become apparent in infrastructures, which aims to serve the demands both of communication and of evaluation.
|
|
| 10. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, 1980-
(author)
-
Taking Comfort in Points : The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Data and Information Science. - De Gruyter : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 2096-157X .- 2543-683X. ; 3:4, s. 84-94
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: The “Norwegian model” has become widely used for assessment and resourceallocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread andinfluential.Approach: A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of “uncertainty” ishighlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are thendrawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactionsto it, in Sweden.Findings: The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universitiesas well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the“publication indicator”—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that theattractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reducecomplexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is lessapplicable.Research limitations: The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can beused for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broadersentiments and trends.Implications: The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application incontexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future.Originality: This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing onits general “appeal”, rather than on its design, use or (mis)-use.
|
|
