Abstract
AbstractIn the neoliberal environment of contemporary academia, an individual’s research rankings and outputs can shape their career security and progression. When applying for ongoing employment and promotional opportunities, academics may benchmark their performance against that of superior colleagues to demonstrate their performance in relation to their discipline. The H-index and citation rates are commonly used to quantify the value of an academic’s work, and they can be used comparatively for benchmarking purposes. The focus of this paper is to critically consider if Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education, by weighting up issues of data reliability and participation. The Google Scholar profiles of full professors at top ranked universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are analysed to explore how widespread Google Scholar use is in the education professoriate. Quartiles of impact are established in relation to H-index, with exploration of how gender is distributed across these quartiles. Limitations of using Google Scholar data are highlighted through a taxonomy of quality confounders, and the utility of Google Scholar as a legitimate tool for benchmarking against the professoriate in education is strongly challenged. As metrics continue to rise in their importance for academics’ job security and promotional prospects, reliance on metrics of dubious quality and uneven participation must be questioned.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,General Social Sciences
Reference50 articles.
1. Albion, P. R. (2012). Benchmarking citation measures among the Australian education professoriate. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 221–235.
2. Arandjelovic, O. (2016). Fairer citation based metrics. Publication Research Quarterly, 32, 163–169.
3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which H-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2018). Comments on the Letter to the Editor on “Multiple versions of the h- index: Cautionary use for formal academic purposes” by Jaime A. Teixera da Silva and Judit Dobránszki. Scientometrics, 115(2), 1115–1117.
5. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 98–109). arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.5611.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献