Acceso usuarios
Zürich, Suiza
When scientists study the phenomena they are interested in, they apply sound methods and base their work on theoretical considerations. In contrast, when the fruits of their research are being evaluated, basic scientific standards do not seem to matter. Instead, simplistic bibliometric indicators (i.e., publication and citation counts) are, paradoxically, both widely used and criticized without any methodological and theoretical framework that would serve to ground both use and critique. Recently, however Bornmann and Marewski (2019) proposed such a framework. They developed bibliometrics-based heuristics (BBHs) based on the fast-and-frugal heuristics approach (Gigerenzer; Todd; ABC Research Group, 1999) to decision making, in order to conceptually understand and empirically investigate the quantitative evaluation of research as well as to effectively train end-users of bibliometrics (e.g., science managers, scientists). Heuristics are decision strategies that use part of the available information and ignore the rest. By exploiting the statistical structure of task environments, they can aid to make accurate, fast, effortless, and cost-efficient decisions without that trade-offs are incurred. Because of their simplicity, heuristics are easy to understand and communicate, enhancing the transparency of decision processes. In this commentary, we explain several BBHs and discuss how such heuristics can be employed in practice (using the evaluation of applicants for funding programs as one example). Furthermore, we outline why heuristics can perform well, and how they and their fit to task environments can be studied. In pointing to the potential of research on BBHs and to the risks that come with an under-researched, mindless usage of bibliometrics, this commentary contributes to make research evaluation more scientific.
