Arbitrariness of bibliometric parameters: a case study on leading scientists in the German Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (DGPT)

Abstract

Bibliometric rankings of researchers are increasingly important for academic hiring and for making grant application decisions in the biomedical sciences. As a case study, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of German pharmacology and toxicology. The 42 members of the German Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (DGPT) represented in the German ‘best scientist’ ranking in biology and biochemistry on www.research.com for the year 2022 were analyzed according to various aspects. The scientist ranking on Research.com is based on the Hirsch Index (h-Index). In the comparatively small field of pharmacology, which accounts for only 4.2% of the scientists in the ranking on Research.com, there are only two women. This shows that female pharmacologists are highly underrepresented in elite pharmacology. To achieve a high h-Index, a pharmacologist must publish more papers than a biochemist or biologist. Furthermore, German elite pharmacology was compared in the three sub-societies of the DGPT. There are no significant differences between elite pharmacologists and toxicologists in terms of productivity. Two large German pharmacology schools (Günter Schultz and Franz Hofmann) are similar in all bibliometric parameters except for number of total publications. Age-specific factors were also defined for the analysis: ‘academic age’ and the quotient of the h-Index by ‘academic age’. Any given bibliometric parameter (or combination of parameters) yielded different ranking results. This became even more evident when additionally considering the highly popular and widely used Laborjournal ranking of top pharmacology and toxicology researchers with only very few DGPT members listed. We unmasked 7 types of publication patterns of pharmacologists, an age-dependent publication peak at around 55 years and different trajectories for high- and low-volume publishing pharmacologists. In the future, less emphasis should be paid to bibliometric parameters in academic hiring and grant decisions than to the authentic societal and scientific impact of the research. Bibliometric parameters are very arbitrary within a very large segment of pharmacologists. Studies according to the paradigm of this account should be made for other countries, other learned societies, and other scientific fields. The different cultures among related scientific fields must be considered in bibliometric analyses as exemplified here for pharmacology versus biochemistry. Conversely, the bibliometric similarities between pharmacology and toxicology show that both fields belong together and have a very similar culture.