Bibliometric indicators play a key role in assessing research performance at individual, departmental, and institutional levels, influencing both funding allocation, and university rankings. However, despite their widespread use, bibliometrics are often applied indiscriminately and without discrimination, overlooking contextual factors that affect research productivity. This research investigates how gender, academic discipline, institutional location, and academic rank influence bibliometric outcomes within the Greek Higher Education system. A dataset of 2015 faculty profiles members from 18 universities and 92 departments was collected and analyzed using data from Google Scholar and Scopus. The findings reveal significant disparities in publication and citation metrics: female researchers, faculty in peripheral institutions, and those in specific disciplines (such as humanities) tend to score lower values across several indicators. These inequalities underscore the risks of applying one-size-fits-all evaluation models in performance-based research funding systems. The paper moves beyond one-size-fits-all perspective and proposes that bibliometric evaluations should be context-sensitive and grounded in discipline and rank-specific benchmarks. By establishing more refined and realistic expectations for researcher productivity, institutions and policymakers can use bibliometrics as a constructive tool for strategic research planning and fair resource allocation, rather than as a mechanism that reinforces the existing biases. The study also contributes to ongoing international discussions on the responsible use of research metrics in higher education policy.
Kouis et al. (Tue,) studied this question.