Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
There is no contradiction or conflict between generating open, continuous
metrics and using them to measure and reward research performance,
continuously. Yes, every formula can be abused. But abuses can be detected
-- especially in the form of anomalous profiles within a multivariate
formula. A univariate metric is far easier to abuse than a profile of
inter-metric relations, both within a single author and across authors in a
field. Abuses can be penalized and formulas can be adjusted. And open
scrutiny is itself a deterrent to cheating and manipulation, especially for
academics. -- SH
On 16-Nov-07, at 7:40 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> If I correctly remember, the Leiden normalization implies that one
> compares
> the citation scores with the expected citation scores given the
> publication
> profile of a group. You are right that a game follows naturally: if one
> publishes in journals below one's level, one can expect to obtain a higher
> than expected citation score. Since all distributions are skewed, this
> effect would be reinforced.
>
> Hitherto, this has not been a major problem because the scores where not
> directly related as input to funding.
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Loet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> > [mailto:SIGMETRICS_at_LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Adams
> > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:26 PM
> > To: SIGMETRICS_at_LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] "Bibliometric Distortion": The
> > Babblarazzi Are At It Again...
> >
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > I'm not planning this. I understand the recommendation is from our
> > colleagues at Leiden, in a report to HEFCE that will be made public
> > later this month.
> > So far as outputs in Thomson-indexed journals go, I think
> > it's feasible
> > (and we have been analysing some scenarios using earlier data
> > reconciliation and analyses we did for HEFCE) but I wouldn't recommend
> > it because of the games playing that I suspect would ensue.
> >
> > Jonathan Adams
> >
> > Director, Evidence Ltd
> > + 44 113 384 5680
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> > [mailto:SIGMETRICS_at_listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
> > Sent: 16 November 2007 12:05
> > To: SIGMETRICS_at_listserv.utk.edu
> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] "Bibliometric Distortion": The
> > Babblarazzi Are
> > At It Again...
> >
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > > The proposal
> > > is that post-2008 the metrics assessment would be of all output,
> > > creating a profile and then deriving a metric derived from that.
> >
> > Dear Jonathan,
> >
> > How are you planning to do this? Interesting.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Loet
> >
Received on Fri Nov 16 2007 - 16:48:07 GMT