Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 228-230

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Mutz, Rüdiger ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650519318     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.009     Document Type: Letter

References (16)

1. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis 2002, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
2. Anon (2010). Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Book of Abstracts. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden, the Netherlands.
3. Bornmann L. Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Inormetrics 2010, 4(3):441-443.
4. Bornmann L., de Moya-Anegón F., Leydesdorff L. Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS One 2010, 5(10):e11344.
5. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Neuhaus C., Daniel H.-D. Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:93-102. doi: 10.3354/esep00084.
6. Boyack K.W. Mapping knowledge domains: characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004, 101:5192-5199.
7. Evidence Ltd. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions 2007, Universities UK, London, UK.
8. Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) 2008, International Mathematical Union (IMU), Berlin, Germany.
9. Kraemer H.C., Morgan G.A., Leech N.L., Gliner J.A., Vaske J.J., Harmon R.J. Measures of clinical significance. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003, 42(12):1524-1529. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000091507.46853.d1.
10. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (in press). Remaining problems with the " New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics.
11. National Science Board Science and engineering indicators 2010, appendix tables 2010, National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01), Arlington, VA, USA.
12. Opthof T., Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (" Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):423-430.
13. Ross S.M. Introduction to probability models 2007, Elsevier, London, UK.
14. van Raan A.F.J. Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance, interdisciplinarity, structure. Measurement 2005, 3(1):1-19.
15. Van Raan A.F.J., Van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. Rivals for the crown: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:431-435.
16. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., van Raan A.F.J. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:37-47.