The Profession
European Political Science (2007) 6, 306–314. doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210136
on the use and abuse of bibliometric performance indicators: a critique of Hix's 'global ranking of political science departments'
Roland Ernea
aIndustrial Relations and Human Resources Group, UCD Business School, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. E-mail: Roland.Erne@ucd.ie
Abstract
Bibliometric measures, as provided by the Social Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information, certainly represent a useful tool for librarians and researchers. However, although librarian scientists have shown that the use of journal impact factors to evaluate the performance of academics is misleading, some authors continue to promote bibliometric metrics to assess the productivity of academic departments and even the entire European academic community. Taking an ambitious 'global ranking of political science departments' as a reference, this article questions both the reliability and desirability of bibliometric performance indicators. The article concludes that the development of a panopticon-like audit culture in universities will not enhance their quality, but rather undermine the classical idea and purpose of the university.
Keywords:
bibliometric performance indicators, journal impact factor, political science, public policy instruments, research assessment exercise, university restructuring
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by Palgrave Macmillan are automatically generated.
RESEARCH
on the use and abuse of bibliometric performance indicators: a critique of Hix's ?global ranking of political science departments?European Political Science Original Article
editing the Journal of European Public PolicyEuropean Political Science Original Article
incentives to publishEuropean Political Science Original Article



