In this chapter we discuss the overestimated believed capacity of scientometrics and bibliometrics to discern high quality scientific research and researchers. Instead, what we believe that a rigorous analysis shows that these disciplines are very far from being able to keep their promises: in fact the mere fact to be able to measure quantities, without being guided by a theory, is not enough to get reliable predictions. Moreover, the phenomena which scientometrics intends to describe are affected by a strong form of “observer effect”, that is the influence on a system caused by the simple fact that it is observed. In fact, no formal theory (as the one, for instance, at the base of Quantum Mechanics) fulfilling the falsification criteria established by epistemological analysis seems indeed available; in the present literature, to describe the considered phenomenology. The general considerations, which are presented, are then particularized to the case of the literature in continuum mechanics. Of course this chapter is not intended to criticize the behaviour of single scholars, yet a collective behaviour of groups of scholars: therefore sometimes the analysis may appear a little bit “generic”, as undue and unnecessary reference to specific personalities has been avoided. To make clear the fil rouge of the argument we want to develop in this chapter, we describe here the content of the sections composing it and their relationships: In the introduction we discuss the epistemological status of bibliometrics and scientometrics and we announce the result of our analysis: these disciplines are not mature yet to supply a reliable guidance in evaluating the quality of scientific research and the standing of scientists. An only apparent digression is presented in the section “Vitruvius versus Archimedes”, where it is shown how the idea that the quality of scholarly work can be estimated simply by counting some bibliometrics numbers is tracked already in the work by Vitruvius. Moreover, we discuss why the great impact of Archimedes in the history of science is not only due to the, undoubtedly enormous, scientific value of his works but mainly to the propaganda made to them by Vitruvius and his epigones. The works of many other Hellenistic scientists giving similar contributions to science have been lost, and their name nearly forgotten, simply because the generation of Vitruvius “scriptores” could not understand them. In Section Scientometrics and Bibliometrics, their methodology is discussed and their limits are highlighted. In particular it is proven that the method of selection of chair and grant holders by juries remains the best one. However, to underline that the scientific program started by De Solla Price can be, most likely, pursued in future, in the section “Beyond Scientometrics”, some ideas about how the theories of games and decisions are evoked, which seem suitable to help in a future development of the methodology able to get the best possible professors’ selection process. Instead, in Section “The impact of publish or perish” the negative effects of the use of bibliometrics indices and of the present form of scientometrics are discussed in general, while in section “The case of Variational Principles in Mechanics” these effects are seen in a particular case. In the final section “some conclusions” are presented, indicating those which seem, at present, the most reasonable choices in the design of the selection mechanisms in Academia.

Bibliometrics, Scientometrics and the Impact of Publishor Perish Culture on Continuum Mechanics

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Francesco dell’Isola

摘要

In this chapter we discuss the overestimated believed capacity of scientometrics and bibliometrics to discern high quality scientific research and researchers. Instead, what we believe that a rigorous analysis shows that these disciplines are very far from being able to keep their promises: in fact the mere fact to be able to measure quantities, without being guided by a theory, is not enough to get reliable predictions. Moreover, the phenomena which scientometrics intends to describe are affected by a strong form of “observer effect”, that is the influence on a system caused by the simple fact that it is observed. In fact, no formal theory (as the one, for instance, at the base of Quantum Mechanics) fulfilling the falsification criteria established by epistemological analysis seems indeed available; in the present literature, to describe the considered phenomenology. The general considerations, which are presented, are then particularized to the case of the literature in continuum mechanics. Of course this chapter is not intended to criticize the behaviour of single scholars, yet a collective behaviour of groups of scholars: therefore sometimes the analysis may appear a little bit “generic”, as undue and unnecessary reference to specific personalities has been avoided. To make clear the fil rouge of the argument we want to develop in this chapter, we describe here the content of the sections composing it and their relationships: In the introduction we discuss the epistemological status of bibliometrics and scientometrics and we announce the result of our analysis: these disciplines are not mature yet to supply a reliable guidance in evaluating the quality of scientific research and the standing of scientists. An only apparent digression is presented in the section “Vitruvius versus Archimedes”, where it is shown how the idea that the quality of scholarly work can be estimated simply by counting some bibliometrics numbers is tracked already in the work by Vitruvius. Moreover, we discuss why the great impact of Archimedes in the history of science is not only due to the, undoubtedly enormous, scientific value of his works but mainly to the propaganda made to them by Vitruvius and his epigones. The works of many other Hellenistic scientists giving similar contributions to science have been lost, and their name nearly forgotten, simply because the generation of Vitruvius “scriptores” could not understand them. In Section Scientometrics and Bibliometrics, their methodology is discussed and their limits are highlighted. In particular it is proven that the method of selection of chair and grant holders by juries remains the best one. However, to underline that the scientific program started by De Solla Price can be, most likely, pursued in future, in the section “Beyond Scientometrics”, some ideas about how the theories of games and decisions are evoked, which seem suitable to help in a future development of the methodology able to get the best possible professors’ selection process. Instead, in Section “The impact of publish or perish” the negative effects of the use of bibliometrics indices and of the present form of scientometrics are discussed in general, while in section “The case of Variational Principles in Mechanics” these effects are seen in a particular case. In the final section “some conclusions” are presented, indicating those which seem, at present, the most reasonable choices in the design of the selection mechanisms in Academia.