| dc.contributor.author | Sivertsen, Gunnar | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-05-31T06:15:46Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-24T11:58:55Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-05-31T06:15:46Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-06-24T11:58:55Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1875-5879 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2394082 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In their contribution to this issue of Journal of Informetrics, ‘A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators’, Giovanni Abramo and Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo open up new and interesting viae for the study of scientific productivity. They combine publication and citation frequencies with data representing economic resources for research in a proposed singular indicator, the ‘Fractional Scientific Strength (FSS)’. At the same time, they call on all of us to flee from Troy and abandon every traditional indicator that measures the average citation impact relative to the number of publications.
I welcome the development of indicators that combine input and output in research. However, I do not agree to that we should close the door behind us to the traditional indicators. I will explain my disagreement before I return to a constructive discussion of the complicated task of measuring scientific productivity. | en |
| dc.language.iso | eng | nb_NO |
| dc.relation.uri | file:///C:/Users/py25/Downloads/Sivertsen%20-%20A%20welcome%20to%20methodological%20pragmatism%20-%20Journal%20of%20Informetrics%2010%20(2016)%20664-666.pdf | |
| dc.title | A welcome to methodological pragmatism | nb_NO |
| dc.type | Journal article | nb_NO |
| dc.type | Peer reviewed | nb_NO |
| dc.date.updated | 2016-05-31T06:15:46Z | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.005 | |
| dc.identifier.cristin | 1358541 | |
