  The number of publications has been a fundamental merit in the competition
for academic positions since the late 18th century. Today, the simple counting
of publications has been supplemented with a whole range of bibliometric
measures, which supposedly not only measures the volume of research but also
its impact. In this study, we investigate how bibliometrics are used for
evaluating the impact and quality of publications in two specific settings:
biomedicine and economics. Our study exposes the extent and type of metrics
used in external evaluations of candidates for academic positions at Swedish
universities. Moreover, we show how different bibliometric indicators, both
explicitly and implicitly, are employed to value and rank candidates. Our
findings contribute to a further understanding of bibliometric indicators as
judgment devices that are employed in evaluating individuals and their
published works within specific fields. We also show how expertise in using
bibliometrics for evaluative purposes is negotiated at the interface between
domain knowledge and skills in using indicators. In line with these results we
propose that the use of metrics in this context is best described as a form of
citizen bibliometrics - an underspecified term which we build upon in the
paper.
