A Community of Bibliometric Practitioners: Your Responses to a Survey on Isolation in the Field

Madelaine Hare, Naomi Richards, Emily Mazure, Barbara Lancho Barrantes, Sheila Craft-Morgan, & The Bibliomagician readership

In the third post of our ongoing series on the realities of bibliometrics practice, we highlight and discuss community responses to our community survey. Solutions proposed by respondents include increased recognition, enhanced integration of bibliometric work within institutions, and the creation of formal Communities of Practice. Changes that the wider bibliometrics community can make to help practitioners feel less isolated include providing networking and training opportunities, increasing guidance on tool use, and creating space for practitioners.

The isolation of bibliometric practitioners

In October, the LIS-Bibliometrics Committee published the post "The isolation of practitioners in bibliometrics: Observed challenges". Four key challenges facing bibliometric practitioners in institutional settings were identified: siloing within these settings, feelings of ineptness regarding expertise and training, evolving technological factors, and misalignment between roles and policies. We invited readers who identify as bibliometric practitioners or who work with them to share their experiences, observations, and insights via an interactive survey, which closed December 1st, 2025. We thank those who took the time to respond. Below, we present the data from the 14 responses to our survey and examine the solutions proposed by the community, for the community.

Bibliometric practitioners: Who you are, where you work, and your numbers

Figure 1: What is your current role/title?

Figure 2: What type of institution do you work in?

Figure 3: How many people at your institution (to your knowledge) do bibliometric work as part of their job?

Experiences with bibliometric practice

Figure 4: My role expectations align with institutional or national research assessment policies (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Figure 5: Bibliometric work in my institution is well integrated across units/departments (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Figure 6: I feel supported in my bibliometrics work (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Figure 7: I sometimes experience feelings of ineptness or "imposter syndrome" in bibliometrics practice (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Unisolating bibliometric practitioners: Coping strategies and proposed solutions

Figure 8: What strategies or resources have helped you feel more connected to the bibliometrics community? (Check all that apply)

Changes institutions can make to better support bibliometric practitioners.

Open-text questions allowed respondents the opportunity to comment on what changes they felt institutions could make to better support bibliometric practitioners. These were summarized into the following recommendations:

Recognition

Survey respondents reported they would feel supported if there were greater acknowledgment of the importance of bibliometrics expertise. They want to feel valued, mentioning their knowledge of both the value and limits of bibliometric indicators. A desire for recognition was prevalent in most responses, and the next two recommendations are more specific forms of recognition that people described.

Enhance integration across the institution

A common recommendation from respondents to better support practitioners was to increase the integration of those conducting bibliometric work within institutions. For example, one respondent noted that metrics were used across the institution (e.g., administrative units and the library) for different purposes (e.g., strategic planning, grant applications, tenure, and promotion). This would encourage exchange and deepen collaboration, ultimately making it a joint effort across multiple roles and stakeholders.

A heightened integration of core research activities across departments, management, and research groups was recommended. A need was identified for a better understanding within organizations of which roles, responsibilities, and mandates practitioners have (or don't have), and which departments bear responsibility for policy and decision-making. There also appears to be room to increase awareness of how metrics are used responsibly, both for internal and external reporting within institutions. There may be utility in increased signposting of bibliometrics support from senior management staff, such as department heads, as bibliometric practitioners may not be aware of how research analytics tools are used by institutional research staff or impact analysts unless they approach the Library services. Thus, clarity around direction and encouragement provided by senior staff would be useful.

Create formal Communities of Practice

Several respondents suggested that connecting bibliometric practitioners through a formal Community of Practice (CoP) would be an effective way of supporting them within institutional environments. Some noted that informal CoPs or groups had emerged organically within their own institutions. Respondents stated that doing so would help with the recognition and differentiation of the roles of different actors across the institution. There was a common desire for well-functioning bibliometric institutional teams in which members could discuss bibliometric questions and issues. How roles and responsibilities would function in these teams elicited differing opinions: one respondent favored clearly defined roles, whereas another sought to share working knowledge of tasks with team members to prevent a single point of failure.

Changes that the wider bibliometrics community (e.g., professional associations, committees, networks) can make to help practitioners feel less isolated.

When asked about changes the wider bibliometrics community can make to lessen the isolation of practitioners, respondents noted that developing connections and a collegial network would help; providing more guidance on using specific tools; and recognizing that more space is needed for practitioner colleagues in the wider bibliometrics field.

Network and training opportunities

Many respondents suggested increased networking opportunities, including regular network meetings and nationally based CoPs (a need particularly in the U.S.). Others acknowledged that while training programs (e.g., workshops, courses) are available, there is room for additional recognized, affordable opportunities. Overall, the sharing of bibliometrics practices and service status across institutions was noted to be helpful for practitioners, keeping them abreast of services and initiatives at other institutions, aligning practices, and advancing institutional bibliometrics cohesively.

More guidance for using tools

Survey responses indicated a need for greater support in using tools and in sharing methodology. One respondent noted that because proprietary databases sometimes lack documentation, they can be difficult to learn and navigate independently. Workshops specifically related to vendor products, such as Incites or Scival, would be useful. It was noted that national networks may be more supportive here, as specific user groups for proprietary tools may exhibit vendor bias. Respondents also expressed interest in the development of a resource where they could share methods and models developed at their institutions with each other, helping to support practitioners with knowledge continuity and "not reinventing the wheel".

Create space

Respondents noted that networking within bibliometric communities can exacerbate feelings of isolation and ineptitude. Often, those invited to speak at conferences and events are formally trained bibliometricians who conduct research and/or possess significant technical skills, such as programming abilities. As such, they often take up discussion space in general. Contrastingly, respondents noted that to avoid repetition, an opening of the field was needed to position bibliometrics as a cross-cutting discipline. Thus, researchers may consider how to be mindful of participating in practitioner-targeted events and supporting their colleagues, while also maintaining openness to the field.

More to Come!

The LIS-Bibliometrics Committee will use these results to inform discussions on how to mitigate these challenges. If you have any thoughts or requests for how the Committee can provide support, please engage in the comments or send a message to lisbibliometrics@gmail.com.

About the authors

Unless it states other wise, the content of the Bibliomagician is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.