Abstract
The knowledge and stance of researchers regarding bibliometric indicators is a field of study that has gained weight in recent decades. In this paper we address this issue for the little explored areas of philosophy and ethics, and applied to a context, in this case Spain, where bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluation processes. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. The survey data suggest that researchers do not consider bibliometric indicators a preferred criterion of quality, while there is a fairly high self-perception of awareness of a number of indicators. The qualitative data points to a generalised perception of a certain rejection of the specific use of indicators, with four main positions being observed: (1) disqualification of the logic of metrics, (2) scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality with quantitative methods, (3) complaints about the incorporation of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines, and (4) criticism of the consequences that this generates in the discipline of philosophy.
Highlights
The generalisation of the use of bibliometric indicators for scientific evaluation has been a constant for a wide range of contexts and disciplines (Butler, 2003, 2007; Geuna & Martin, 2003; Hammarfelt & Rushforth, 2017; Moed, 2005; Whitley, 2007)
It initially seemed that the humanities would be barred from adopting bibliometric indicators because of their epistemological differences, their peculiarities in terms of their research practices, publication habits and citation processes (Garfield, 1980; Nederhof, 2006), today these techniques are widely used for this field
Another central topic regarding the use of bibliometric indicators in the evaluation of the humanities warns us of the effects it can have on the idiosyncrasies of the discipline (Hammarfelt, 2017; Hicks et al, 2015)
Summary
The generalisation of the use of bibliometric indicators for scientific evaluation has been a constant for a wide range of contexts and disciplines (Butler, 2003, 2007; Geuna & Martin, 2003; Hammarfelt & Rushforth, 2017; Moed, 2005; Whitley, 2007). It initially seemed that the humanities would be barred from adopting bibliometric indicators because of their epistemological differences, their peculiarities in terms of their research practices, publication habits and citation processes (Garfield, 1980; Nederhof, 2006), today these techniques are widely used for this field An added difficulty is the poor coverage of the humanities in citation databases (Web of Science and Scopus) (Hicks, 1999, 2004; Archambault et al, 2006; Martín-Martin et al, 2018, 2021) Another central topic regarding the use of bibliometric indicators in the evaluation of the humanities warns us of the effects it can have on the idiosyncrasies of the discipline (Hammarfelt, 2017; Hicks et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
