The elephant in the room: The problem of quantifying productivity in evaluative scientometrics

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the validity of common scientometric indicators like MNCS, emphasizing the importance of productivity-based measures for assessing scientific performance and responding to prior critiques.

Contribution

It offers a nuanced response to critiques of scientometric indicators, advocating for productivity-aware metrics in evaluating scientific performance.

Findings

Highlights limitations of MNCS as a performance indicator

Argues for the importance of productivity in scientometric assessment

Provides a balanced critique of previous claims

Abstract

In a critical and provocative paper, Abramo and D'Angelo claim that commonly used scientometric indicators such as the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) are completely inappropriate as indicators of scientific performance. Abramo and D'Angelo argue that scientific performance should be quantified using indicators that take into account the productivity of a research unit. We provide a response to Abramo and D'Angelo, indicating where we believe they raise important issues, but also pointing out where we believe their claims to be too extreme.