Abstract

Fast-and-frugal heuristics are simple strategies that base decisions on only a few predictor variables. In so doing, heuristics may not only reduce complexity but also boost the accuracy of decisions, their speed, and transparency. In this paper, bibliometrics-based decision trees (BBDTs) are introduced for research evaluation purposes. BBDTs visualize bibliometrics-based heuristics (BBHs), which are judgment strategies solely using publication and citation data. The BBDT exemplar presented in this paper can be used as guidance to find an answer on the question in which situations simple indicators such as mean citation rates are reasonable and in which situations more elaborated indicators (i.e., [sub-]field-normalized indicators) should be applied.

Highlights

  • Bibliometrics are frequently used in research evaluation

  • The bibliometrics-based decision trees (BBDTs) presented in the following is a tool for making decisions in bibliometrics-based research evaluations

  • In the process of developing the BBDT, the experience has been that this process was interesting in view of the application by the later user but was interesting for the developer, because he had to think about the evaluation situation, available indicators, evaluation goals, etc

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peer review and bibliometrics are combined in an informed peer review process. Bibliometrics are considered “to break open peer review processes, and stimulate peers to make the foundation and justification of their judgments more explicit” The term desktop bibliometrics describes the application of bibliometrics by decision makers (e.g., deans or administrators) without involving experts (i.e., scientists) from the evaluated fields (Leydesdorff, Wouters, & Bornmann, 2016). Another characteristic of “desktop bibliometrics” is the application of inappropriate indicators for measuring performance, since bibliometrics experts are not involved. Informed peer review processes and “desktop bibliometrics” exist side by side in the research evaluation landscape

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.