• views: 55
• date: 20 October 2026
• posted by: BeMyLove

Why bibliometrics is useful for understanding the global dynamics of science but generate perverse effects when applied inappropriately in research evaluation and university rankings.

The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything—teachers, professors, training programs, universities—using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics—aggregate data on publications and citations—has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to.



   
   
   

Forex Trading

Crypto Trading. 20 USD Bonus after KYC

We need your support!
Make a donation to help us stay online
        
Bitcoin (BTC)
bc1q08g9d22cxkawsjlf8etuek2pc9n2a3hs4cdrld
	
Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
qqvwexzhvgauxq2apgc4j0ewvcak6hh6lsnzmvtkem

Ethereum (ETH)
0xb55513D2c91A6e3c497621644ec99e206CDaf239

Litecoin (LTC)
ltc1qt6g2trfv9tjs4qj68sqc4uf0ukvc9jpnsyt59u

USDT (ERC20)
0xb55513D2c91A6e3c497621644ec99e206CDaf239

USDT (TRC20)
TYdPNrz7v1P9riWBWZ317oBgJueheGjATm

0 1 2 3 4 5

| Print version |

	Information
		Users of GUESTS are not allowed to comment this publication.