Klein Waldo C, Bloom Martin
School of Social Work, University of Connecticut, 1798 Asylum Ave, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA.
Soc Work Health Care. 2005;41(3-4):117-21. doi: 10.1300/J010v41n03_07.
This commentary raises significant cautions related to inherent shortcomings in the use of bibliographic analytic technology, and in particular its use in substantive decision making around promotion and tenure. Questions are raised concerning the continued use of scholarly energy for bibliometric analysis of subtly different settings. The recommendation is offered that future efforts in bibliometrics must target methods to reduce methodological shortcomings. These include clarifying the metric used to count sole/multiple authorship, and to evaluate the"merit" of manuscripts as well as journals in which they appear. Finally, the fundamental meaning of the information produced in these analyses (i.e., the validity of the measure) must be clearly presented in order for it to be credibly used.
本评论提出了与文献分析技术使用中固有缺陷相关的重大警示，特别是其在围绕晋升和终身教职的实质性决策中的应用。对于在略有不同的背景下持续将学术精力用于文献计量分析的做法，人们提出了质疑。建议文献计量学未来的工作必须致力于减少方法上的缺陷。这些缺陷包括明确用于计算独著/合著的指标，以及评估稿件及其发表期刊的“价值”。最后，这些分析所产生信息的基本含义（即测量的有效性）必须清晰呈现，以便能够可靠地使用。
