Interpretations and misinterpretations of scientometric data in the report of the Royal Society about the scientific landscape in 2011

Interpretations and misinterpretations of scientometric data in the report of the Royal Society... Purpose – This paper aims to discuss some caveats about the findings of Part 1 of the Royal Society's report from the perspective of the choice and reliability of the source base, and the bibliometric and scientometric indicators. Design/methodology/approach – The paper argues that the Royal Society's report gives too much emphasis to the growth rate of the publications of Chinese researchers when interpolating those data and forecasting that, within the decade and possibly as early as 2013, China will be ahead of even the USA in terms of the number of publications. Findings – In an era when the “publish or perish” slogan is replaced by the “get cited or perish” mantra, the report barely discusses how much China is behind the world average and especially the above countries in terms of the most important scientometric indicators that take into account the productivity/quantity aspect and the citedness of publications as a proxy for quality. Originality/value – The paper illustrates that there are much better measures for the assessment of research activity than the one‐dimensional productivity numbers, such as the h‐index or the uncitedness rate, and the citations/publication rate where China is far below and the USA is far above the world average scores, and uses some charts to paint a more realistic picture of the scientific landscape. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Online Information Review Emerald Publishing

Interpretations and misinterpretations of scientometric data in the report of the Royal Society about the scientific landscape in 2011

Online Information Review, Volume 35 (4): 14 – Aug 9, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/interpretations-and-misinterpretations-of-scientometric-data-in-the-WPi0S82ruC
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1468-4527
DOI
10.1108/14684521111161990
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to discuss some caveats about the findings of Part 1 of the Royal Society's report from the perspective of the choice and reliability of the source base, and the bibliometric and scientometric indicators. Design/methodology/approach – The paper argues that the Royal Society's report gives too much emphasis to the growth rate of the publications of Chinese researchers when interpolating those data and forecasting that, within the decade and possibly as early as 2013, China will be ahead of even the USA in terms of the number of publications. Findings – In an era when the “publish or perish” slogan is replaced by the “get cited or perish” mantra, the report barely discusses how much China is behind the world average and especially the above countries in terms of the most important scientometric indicators that take into account the productivity/quantity aspect and the citedness of publications as a proxy for quality. Originality/value – The paper illustrates that there are much better measures for the assessment of research activity than the one‐dimensional productivity numbers, such as the h‐index or the uncitedness rate, and the citations/publication rate where China is far below and the USA is far above the world average scores, and uses some charts to paint a more realistic picture of the scientific landscape.

Journal

Online Information ReviewEmerald Publishing

Published: Aug 9, 2011

Keywords: Sciences; Reports; Research; Publications; Measurement; Search output; Databases; China; United Kingdom

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off