Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis

Scientometrics

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 467-481

  Waltman, Ludo ^a   van Eck, Nees Jan ^a   van Leeuwen, Thed N ^a   Visser, Martijn S ^a   van Raan, Anthony F J ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometric indicator; Citation; Crown indicator; Field; Normalization

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955465810     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 441-443.
2. Bornmann, L., and Mutz, R. (2011). Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 228-230.
3. Braun, T., and Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 513-521.
4. Campbell, D., Archambault, E., Côté, G. (2008). Benchmarking of Canadian Genomics-1996-2007. Retrieved Nov 5, 2010, from http://www. science-metrix. com/pdf/SM_Benchmarking_Genomics_Canada. pdf.
5. Colliander, C., and Ahlgren, P. (2011). The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 101-113.
6. De Bruin, R. E., Kint, A., Luwel, M., and Moed, H. F. (1993). A study of research evaluation and planning: The University of Ghent. Research Evaluation, 3(1), 25-41.
7. Dimitrov, J. D., Kaveri, S. V., and Bayry, J. (2010). Metrics: Journal's impact factor skewed by a single paper. Nature, 466(7303), 179.
8. Egghe, L., and Rousseau, R. (1996a). Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data. Journal of Information Science, 22(3), 165-170.
9. Egghe, L., and Rousseau, R. (1996b). Average and global impact of a set of journals. Scientometrics, 36(1), 97-107.
10. Gingras, Y., and Larivière, V. (2011). There are neither "king" nor "crown" in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed "alternative" method of normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 226-227.
11. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Schubert, A., and Debackere, K. (2009). Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics, 78(1), 165-188.
12. Leydesdorff, L., and Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 644-646.
13. Leydesdorff, L., and Opthof, T. (2011). Remaining problems with the "new crown indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 224-225.
14. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154.
15. Moed, H. F. (2010). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 436-438.
16. Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., and van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381-422.
17. Opthof, T., and Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423-430.
18. Rehn, C., and Kronman, U. (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. Retrieved Nov 5, 2010, from http://ki. se/content/1/c6/01/79/31/bibliometric_handbook_karolinska_institutet_v_1. 05. pdf.
19. Sandström, U. (2009). Bibliometric evaluation of research programs: A study of scientific quality. Retrieved Nov 5, 2010, from http://www. forskningspolitik. se/DataFile. asp?FileID=182.
20. Schubert, A., and Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291.
21. SCImago Research Group. (2009). SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR): 2009 world report. Retrieved Nov 5, 2010, from http://www. scimagoir. com/pdf/sir_2009_world_report. pdf.
22. Spaan, J. A. E. (2010). The danger of pseudoscience in Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 439-440.
23. van Leeuwen, T. N., and Moed, H. F. (2002). Development and application of journal impact measures in the Dutch science system. Scientometrics, 53(2), 249-266.
24. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Measuring science: Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, and U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19-50). New York: Springer.
25. van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 431-435.
26. van Veller, M. G. P., Gerritsma, W., van der Togt, P. L., Leon, C. D., and van Zeist, C. M. (2009). Bibliometric analyses on repository contents for the evaluation of research at Wageningen UR. In A. Katsirikou and C. H. Skiadas (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries: Theory and applications (pp. 19-26). Singapore: World Scientific.
27. Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3-4), 157-177.
28. Vinkler, P. (1996). Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics, 36(2), 223-236.
29. VSNU. (2002). Chemistry and chemical engineering (assessment of research quality). Utrecht: VSNU.
30. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., and van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.