  This study aims to investigate the Taiwanese researchers' awareness toward
bibliometric indicators and the principles from Leiden Manifesto. The online
survey was conducted and obtained a total of 417 valid responses. The results
show that evoking the right concept of use of bibliometric indicators and
research evaluation has a long way to go. The lack of recognition of
bibliometric indicators exists in Taiwanese academia. Generally speaking,
researchers may hear of the certain indicator, but they are not familiar with
its definition and calculation process. Only JIF and h-index are considered as
well-known indicators. The results also suggest that the ten principles from
Leiden Manifesto can be considered as the universal guideline in research
evaluation since most of Taiwanese researchers agree the contents. Especially
for the principle 6 "Account for variation by field in publication and citation
practices" has highest degree of agreement. However, it is interesting to
compare the result of recognition of relative citation ratio, only few
researchers have fully understood the definition. This result indicates the
scientometricians should make more effort to disseminate the concept of
field-normalization in bibliometric indicators. The researchers do have
understanding about the importance of comparison on the same basis, at the
meantime, they may use the inappropriate indicators just because of lacking of
enough knowledge on the variety of indicators. Hence, it is important to
initiate the education of informetrics to all of the stakeholders in research
evaluation so that the misuse and abuse of bibliometric indicators may possibly
not happen again, and the bibliometric analysis is able to turn to
contextualization-based analysis in the future.
