Abstract
AbstractFollowing Funk and Owen-Smith (Manag Sci 63:791–817, 2017), Wu et al. (Nature 566:378–382, 2019) proposed the disruption index (DI1) as a bibliometric indicator that measures disruptive and consolidating research. When we summarized the literature on the disruption index for our recently published review article (Leibel and Bornmann in Scientometrics 129:601–639, 2024), we noticed that the calculation of disruption scores comes with numerous (hidden) degrees of freedom. In this Letter to the Editor, we explain based on the DI1 (as an example) why the analytical flexibility of bibliometric indicators potentially endangers the credibility of research and advertise the application of multiverse-style methods to increase the transparency of the research.
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.
