Metrics as Proxies: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Reasonings Based on Bibliometric Indicators

The role of bibliometric indicators in research assessment has been widely debated. This article explores how citation-based metrics are interpreted and applied in negative habilitation reviews, combining theoretical insights on citation practices with empirical analysis of review discourse. The theoretical section examines different conceptual frameworks for understanding bibliometric indicators, including essentialist, constructivist, and normative perspectives on citations. It highlights how citation metrics are often assumed to reflect recognition, influence, or research quality, despite growing evidence of their contextual limitations. The empirical section analyzes 174 negative habilitation reviews from four disciplines, identifying distinct patterns in how reviewers incorporate bibliometric data into their assessments. While some reviewers treat citation counts and journal rankings as direct indicators of scholarly impact, others regard them as secondary or complementary tools that require careful contextualization. The findings reveal a lack of standardized bibliometric reasoning, leading to inconsistencies in how candidates’ research contributions are evaluated. The study underscores the need for greater transparency and theoretical awareness in the use of citation-based metrics in peer review, contributing to broader discussions on the reliability and standardization of research evaluation practices.