References
- Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C.A. (2013). National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: The Italian case. Scientometrics, 95, 311–324.
- Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C.A. (2023). The impact of Italian performance-based research funding systems on the intensity of international research collaboration. Research Evaluation, 32(1), 47–57.
- Adair, J.G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 334–345.
- Akbaritabar, A., Bravo, G., & Squazzoni, F. (2021). The impact of a national research assessment on the publications of sociologists in Italy. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 662–678.
- Aksnes, D. W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 169–185.
- Aksnes, D. W., & Rip, A. (2009). Researchers’ perceptions of citations. Research Policy, 38(6), 895–905.
- Anfossi, A., Ciolfi, A., Costa, F., Parisi, G., & Benedetto, S. (2016). Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 107(2), 671–683.
- Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535(7611), 201–201.
- Biagioli, M., & Lippman, A. (Eds.). (2020). Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research. MIT Press.
- Bonaccorsi, A. (2020a). Two decades of experience in research assessment in Italy. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 16.
- Bonaccorsi, A. (2020b). Two decades of research assessment in Italy. Addressing the criticisms. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 17.
- Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.
- Bornmann, L. & Wohlrabe, K. (2019). Normalization of citation impact in economics. Scientometrics, 120(2), 841–884.
- Brooks, C., & Schopohl, L. (2018). Topics and trends in finance research: What is published, who publishes it and what gets cited? The British Accounting Review, 50(6), 615–637.
- Broucker, B., & De Wit, K. (2015). New public management in higher education. In The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 57–75). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
- Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92(2), 281–292.
- Checchi, D., Mazzotta, I., Momigliano, S., & Olivanti, F. (2020). Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case. Scientometrics, 124, 1439–1455.
- Chen, C. M.-L., & Lin, W.-Y. C. (2018). What indicators matter? The analysis of perception towards research assessment indicators and Leiden Manifesto: The case study of Taiwan. In R. Costas, T. Franssen, & A. Yegros-Yegros (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018) (pp. 688–698). Leiden, Netherlands: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/65192/STI2018_paper_121.pdf?sequence=1
- Cheung, W.W. (2008). The economics of post-doc publishing. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 41–44.
- Corsi, M., D’Ippoliti, C. & Zacchia, G. (2019). On the evolution of the glass ceiling in Italian academia: the case of economics. Science in Context, 32(4), 411–430.
- Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D. G., van der Weijden, I., & Wilsdon, J. (2020). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles and the way ahead. Research on Research Institute Working Paper, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914.v1
- Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media.
- Derrick, G.E., & Gillespie, J. (2013). “A number you just can’t get away from”: Characteristics of adoption and the social construction of metrics use by researchers’. In S. Hinze & A. Lottman (Eds.), zProceedings of the 18th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 104–116).
- DORA. (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://sfdora.org/read
- Dorsch, I., Jeffrey, A., Ebrahimzadeh, S., Maggio, L.A., & Haustein, S. (2021). Metrics literacies: On the State of the Art of Multimedia Scholarly Metrics Education. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 1465–1466). Leuven, Belgium: Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5101306
- European Commission. (2021). Towards a reform of the research assessment system: scoping report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139.
- Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480.
- Franceschini, F., Maisano, D. & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016). Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 933–953.
- Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. MIT Press.
- Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Problems of monetary management: The UK experience. In C. A. E. Goodhart (Ed.), Monetary theory and practice: The UK experience. Papers in monetary economics (Vol. 1, pp. 91–121). Sydney, Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia.
- Guba, K. (2024). Why do sociologists on academic periphery willingly support bibliometric indicators?. Scientometrics, 129(1), 497–518.
- Guba, K., Zheleznov, A., & Chechik, E. (2023). Evaluating grant proposals: Lessons from using metrics as screening device. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(2), 66–92.
- Haddow, G., & Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Quality, impact, and quantification: Indicators and metrics use by social scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 16–26.
- Hammarfelt, B., & Haddow, G. (2018). Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(7), 924–935.
- Hammarfelt, B., & Rushforth, A.D. (2017). Indicators as judgment devices: An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 169–180.
- Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108, 413–423.
- Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.) Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 121–139). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp.473–496). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
- Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S. & I. Rafols (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
- Kamrani, P., Dorsch, I., & Stock, W.G. (2021). Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance? Scientometrics, 126(7), 5489–5508.
- Kulczycki, E., Engels, T.C., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., … & Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116, 463–486.
- Lemke, S., Mehrazar, M., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2019). “When you use social media you are not working”: Barriers for the use of metrics in Social Sciences. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 39.
- Lin, J. & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and re-defining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 19–26.
- Ma, L., & Ladisch, M. (2019). Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities. Research Evaluation, 28(3), 209–217.
- Maggio, L.A., Jeffrey, A., Haustein, S., & Samuel, A. (2022). Becoming metrics literate: An analysis of brief videos that teach about the h-index. Plos One, 17(5), e0268110.
- Mason, S., Merga, M.K., Canche, M.S.G., & Roni, S.M. (2021). The internationality of published higher education scholarship: How do the ‘top’journals compare? Journal of Informetrics, 15(2), 101155.
- Millman, J., Bishop, C. H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis of test-wiseness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 707–726.
- Moed, H.F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Moed, H.F. (2020). Appropriate use of metrics in research assessment of autonomous academic institutions. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 1. http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.8
- Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M.H., Barbour, V., … & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
- Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10), 1747–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.002
- Olaya Escobar, E.S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Alegre, I., & Duarte Velasco, O.G. (2017). Researchers’ willingness to engage in knowledge and technology transfer activities: An exploration of the underlying motivations. R&D Management, 47(5), 715–726.
- Penny, D. (2016). What matters where? Cultural and geographical factors in science. Slides presented at the 3rd Altmetrics Conference, Bucharest, Romania. Retrieved from https://figshare.com/articles/What_matters_ where_Cultural_and_geographical_factors_in_science/3969012
- Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P. & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business and Management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.
- Rousseau, R., Egghe, L. & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise. A bibliometric guide for researchers. Kidlington: Chandos (Elsevier).
- Rousseau, S., Catalano, G., & Daraio, C. (2021). Can we estimate a monetary value of scientific publications? Research Policy, 50(1), 104116.
- Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2015). Metric-wiseness. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2389.
- Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2017). Being metric-wise: Heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge. El Profesional de la Información, 26(3), 480–487.
- Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2021). Bibliometric techniques and their use in business and economics research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(5), 1428–1451.
- Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research— Boon or bane? Research policy, 38(8), 1225–1234.
- Söderlind, J., & Geschwınd, L. (2020). Disciplinary differences in academics’ perceptions of performance measurement at Nordic universities. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 1(1), 18–31.
- Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2021). Researchers’ attitudes towards the h-index on Twitter 2007–2020: Criticism and acceptance. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5361–5368.
- Tourish, D. & Willmott, H. (2015). In defiance of folly: Journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS Guide. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 37–46.
- van Dalen, H.P. & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.
- van Raan, A.F. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133–143.
- Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J. & Johnson, B. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363