Several disciplines and their scientific societies increasingly distance themselves from the use of bibliometric measures aimed at assessing the quality of research. In contrast, economists seems rather eager to define quantitative ways to evaluate single contributions, researchers or research institutions. The projects collected here aim at documenting how citations and simplistic bibliometric measures are a potentially misleading tool to evaluate research quality in economics and elsewhere, which nonetheless shape the development of academic fields.
In this context the work done in Linz and Yale focuses on the sub-Project “Citation Culture in Physics and Economics: Assessing Differences between Disciplines”, which aims to compare bibliometric trends in economics, physics and additional disciplines, to gain a better understanding of common trends and specific developments in the academic conversation. In doing so we use rough arguments from philosophy of science to motivate specific scientometric applications in order to gain an impression how well the discourses under scrutiny conform to the philosophical notion of an ideal scientific procedure.
To assess this degree of conformity, we develop various metrics such as
Aistleitner Matthias, Fölker Marianne and Kapeller Jakob (2016): Die Macht der Wissenschaftsstatistik und die Entwicklung der Ökonomie, opens an external URL in a new window. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 135: 111-132. Also availvable as: ICAE Working Paper Nr. 33, opens a file.
Aistleitner Matthias, Kapeller Jakob and Steinerberger Stefan (2016): The Power of Scientometrics and the Development of Economics, opens a file in a new window. Working Paper Series, Nr. 46. ICAE Linz.
Kapeller Jakob, Steinerberger Stefan (2016): Emergent Patterns in Scientific Publishing: A Simulation Exercise, opens an external URL in a new window. Research Policy, 45 (10): 1945–1952.
This project is funded by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Sapienza University Rome
Johannes Kepler University Linz