Das Messen des leicht Meßbaren : Output-Indikatoren, Impact-Maße: Artefakte der Szientometrie?

Abstract

Formal scientometric models serve for mathematical modelling and extra polation of quantitative developments. They are hardly usable for contentual, practise relevant, power sensitive questions, because they ignore the social character of scientific methods (Karl Popper). Nowadays databases are used more and more for the generation of output and input factors: publication frequency of authors, institutions, disciplines ("productivity"), frequency of citations ("impact"), often interpreted as "quality" of publications. The equalisation of productivity with scientific achievment, creativity and innovation, as well of syntony with quality are highly questionable: they ignore customs and power relations, see the discussion about "unethical authorships": department leaders, brokers of money or material are mentioned as "honour authors" at all papers of the project. Important contributors are hidden in footnotes (sub-authors). Several cash flows from several funds for several authors produce several papers, on which someone can be mentioned as co-author. Evaluative scientometrics is not – as claimed – based on "non-reactive measurement procedures". The "measurement"-proceedings in interatcion with the anticipation of the affected persons produce artifacts: artificial products and result distortions. The logic of quantitative evaluation seems to be similar to the Soviet centrally planned economy logic. Productivity parameters of authors, groups and institutions are more indicators for power, social and economical capital, than for "pure" scientific achievment. Syntony is also an effect of publicity, prestige, connections and money: "Hot papers" descend from more authors from from more participating insitutions than average quoted papers. The more research supporters, the more impact. With the growing number of co-authors, the number of direct and indirect "self citations" is growing as well ("group-self-citations2). Distorting, less known authors and institutions discriminating facts: citation databases adopt the quotation lists of the original papers with all included errors. They are not randomly distributed: the names of more known authors are more likely to be written correctly respectively a misspelling is more likely to be corrected than of unknown authors, English-based names of authors are more likely to be spellt correctly than non-English ones in US-databases. The journal bias of the ISI has called for criticizm and reform suggestions. For the reform of scientific communication Cameron suggests an universal, internet-based, bibliographic citation database. In the age of cost effective decentralized internet technologies this is not an utopian enterprise. I plead for scientometrics, that has been enlightened by philosophy of science and that has been purified by social sciences.