{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022908366533864542, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.401273885350318, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation

Recent high‐profile statements, criticisms, and boycotts organized against certain quantitative indicators (e.g., the DORA declaration) have brought misuses of performance metrics to the center of attention. A key concern captured in these movements is that the metrics appear to carry authority even where established agents of quality control have explicitly outlined limits to their validity and reliability as measurement tools. This raises a number of challenging questions for those readers of this journal who are implicated in questions of indicator “production” and, by extension, “effects.” In this opinion piece we wish to critically engage the question of how producers of indicators can come to terms with their role as (partly) responsible parties in the current age of evaluative bibliometrics. We do so through the illuminating case of the professional scientometrics community.