专业和公民文献计量学：指标制定和使用中的互补性和矛盾性
Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators
摘要：
文献计量学指标，如期刊影响因子、h指数和总引用数，是可用于研究评估和管理的算法工件。这些人工制品本身没有意义，但从制度实践中的属性中获得它们的意义。在这些实践中，我们区分了四个主要的利益相关者：（1）文献计量数据和指标的生产者;（2）开发和测试指标的文献计量学家;（3）应用指标的研究管理人员;（4）被评估的科学家，他们可能有竞争性的职业兴趣。这些不同的立场可能导致对指标的意义和价值的不同看法，有时甚至是相互冲突的看法。因此，这些指标可以被视为边界对象，这些边界对象是在这些视角之间的翻译中社会构建的。本文提出了一个分析澄清，列出了一套知情的（有时未解决的）问题，在文献计量学，也可以揭示之间的紧张局势简单，但无效的指标，广泛使用（例如，h指数）和更复杂的指标，这些指标在评价实践中没有使用或不能使用，因为它们对用户不透明，无法计算，或难以解释。
英文摘要：
Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h-indices, and total citation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research evaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but receive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We distinguish four main stakeholders in these practices: (1) producers of bibliometric data and indicators; (2) bibliometricians who develop and test indicators; (3) research managers who apply the indicators; and (4) the scientists being evaluated with potentially competing career interests. These different positions may lead to different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the meaning and value of the indicators. The indicators can thus be considered as boundary objects which are socially constructed in translations among these perspectives. This paper proposes an analytical clarification by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in bibliometrics which can also shed light on the tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h-index) and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
