Does the specification of uncertainty hurt the progress of scientometrics?

TL;DR

This paper argues that explicitly specifying uncertainty in scientometric analyses enhances transparency and debate, challenging the view that uncertainty specification might hinder scientific progress.

Contribution

It provides a theoretical critique of the notion that uncertainty specification harms scientometric progress, advocating for transparent reporting of error bars.

Findings

Explicit uncertainty promotes debate and transparency.

Suppressing error bars undermines trust in results.

Theoretical analysis of statistical practices in scientometrics.

Abstract

In "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments,"--Journal of Informetrics 7(1)(2013) 50-62, available at arXiv:1112.2516 -- Schneider (2013) focuses on Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010) as an example of the misuse of statistics in the social sciences. However, our conclusions are theoretical since they are not dependent on the use of one statistics or another. We agree with Schneider insofar as he proposes to develop further statistical instruments (such as effect sizes). Schneider (2013), however, argues on meta-theoretical grounds against the specification of uncertainty because, in his opinion, the presence of statistics would legitimate decision-making. We disagree: uncertainty can also be used for opening a debate. Scientometric results in which error bars are suppressed for meta-theoretical reasons should not be trusted.