The paradoxes of bibliometric tools

Abstract

The authors argue that bibliometrics has become the most important instrument to assess scientific and research activities. However, the information resources often fail to supply correct bibliometric data. Some paradoxes of data retrieval in several bibliometric information systems are examined. Within the RSCI system, the works published before the authors were born sometimes are included into their publication lists. Within the Scopus system, when calculating Hirsch index, we found that for some reason this indicator differed and some publications at some point dropped out of the list. Besides, sometimes bibliographic description in the databases is incorrect: publications on researchers are described as if authored by these researchers. Other paradoxes due to the race to the top publication activity and related risks are also considered.