Abstract
Given the recent publication of the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics, we wanted to highlight some key aspects related to the field of scientometrics in order to offer a counterbalanced approach by addressing all the Leiden arguments from a different point of view. Although we agree the scientometric data have sometimes been used in inappropriate ways, we think that the problem lies not with the field, but with the incorrect uses of scientometric information. Thus, some of the arguments stated in the Leiden manifesto seem to be more like a straw man strategy because they are formulated as criticism to science evaluation in general rather than to the specific field of scientometrics.
References
EASE (2007). European Association of Science Editors (EASE). Statement on inappropriate use of impact factors. Retrieved 2015-006.12.
Garfield, E. (1964). Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.
Hick, D. et al. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.
Isaacs, D., & Fitzgerald, D. (1999). Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. British Medical Journal, 319, 1618.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
David, D., Frangopol, P. The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: a scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics. Scientometrics 105, 2255–2257 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1634-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1634-2