
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
"Bibliometric denialism", a growing trend rejecting the use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation, is becoming more prevalent. Stemming from misinterpretations of the DORA declaration, this movement encourages evaluation via qualitative measures only, neglecting the supportive role of bibliometrics. We advocate for a balanced approach, acknowledging the merits and drawbacks of both qualitative and quantitative methods in scientific evaluation.
This letter is a preprint and its final version is published in Scientometrics
Bibliometrics, Indicators, Denialism
Bibliometrics, Indicators, Denialism
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 11 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
views | 1K | |
downloads | 748 |