Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics

TL;DR

This paper advocates for developing and critically evaluating field-normalized impact indicators in bibliometrics using Popper's critical rationalism, aiming to establish a reliable standard through meta-analyses and continuous revision.

Contribution

It proposes a framework based on Popperian critical rationalism for developing, testing, and standardizing bibliometric impact indicators through meta-analyses.

Findings

Meta-analyses can identify reliable impact indicators.

Critical evaluation improves indicator validity.

A collaborative process can establish standards in bibliometrics.

Abstract

Bibliometrics plays an increasingly important role in research evaluation. However, no gold standard exists for a set of reliable and valid (field-normalized) impact indicators in research evaluation. This opinion paper recommends that bibliometricians develop and analyze these impact indicators against the backdrop of Popper's critical rationalism. The studies critically investigating the indicators should publish the results in such a way that they can be included in meta-analyses. The results of meta-analyses give guidance on which indicators can then be part of a set of indicators used as standard in bibliometrics. The generation and continuous revision of the standard set could be handled by the International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics (ISSI).