Towards leiden Maniefsto version 2.0
Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Poster › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Towards leiden Maniefsto version 2.0. / Wildgaard, Lorna Elizabeth; Gauffriau, Marianne.
2019. Poster session præsenteret ved 17th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, ISSI 2017, Rom, Italien.Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Poster › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CONF
T1 - Towards leiden Maniefsto version 2.0
AU - Wildgaard, Lorna Elizabeth
AU - Gauffriau, Marianne
N1 - Conference code: 17
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - In Leiden Manifesto (LM) (Hicks et al 2015) bibliometric evaluation is explained as a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, allowing the use of different metrics, disciplinary knowledge and research performance strategies. Both bibliometricians and consumers of bibliometrics are encouraged to communicate and use the LM principles to acknowledge what they know and do not know, what is measured and what is not measured, thus legitimizing the use of metrics applied in an evaluation. However, we have previously observed that it is unclear how the LM principles should be interpreted in a concrete evaluation and that evaluations may differ in their interpretations of the LM principles. Our concern is that interpretations randomly differ from case to case. The present study investigates how the LM principles have been interpreted in concrete evaluations. Based on the investigation we suggest possible future developments of the LM.
AB - In Leiden Manifesto (LM) (Hicks et al 2015) bibliometric evaluation is explained as a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, allowing the use of different metrics, disciplinary knowledge and research performance strategies. Both bibliometricians and consumers of bibliometrics are encouraged to communicate and use the LM principles to acknowledge what they know and do not know, what is measured and what is not measured, thus legitimizing the use of metrics applied in an evaluation. However, we have previously observed that it is unclear how the LM principles should be interpreted in a concrete evaluation and that evaluations may differ in their interpretations of the LM principles. Our concern is that interpretations randomly differ from case to case. The present study investigates how the LM principles have been interpreted in concrete evaluations. Based on the investigation we suggest possible future developments of the LM.
U2 - 10.5281/zenodo.3428460
DO - 10.5281/zenodo.3428460
M3 - Poster
Y2 - 2 September 2019 through 5 September 2019
ER -
ID: 227413876