Double rank analysis for research assessment

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 31-41

  Rodríguez Navarro, Alonso ^a   Brito, Ricardo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Citation distribution; Double rank analysis; Lognormal distribution; Research assessment

Indexed keywords

CODES (SYMBOLS);

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CITATION DISTRIBUTION; DOUBLE-RANK ANALYSIS; HIGHLY-CITED PAPERS; LOG-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NOBEL PRIZES; POWER-LAW BEHAVIOR; RELIABLE METHODS;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 85035025131     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Albarrán, P., Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Differences in citation impact across countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66 (2015), 512–525.
2. Albarrán, P., Herrero, C., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Villar, A., The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact. Journal of Informetrics 11 (2017), 625–640.
3. Andras, P., Research: Metrics, quality, and management implications. Research Evaluation 20 (2011), 90–106.
4. Bonaccorsi, A., Explaining poor performance of European science: Institutions versus policies. Science and Public Policy 34 (2007), 303–316.
5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics 5 (2011), 228–230.
6. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Mutz, R., The use of percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics 7 (2013), 158–165.
7. Brzezinski, M., Power laws in citation distribution: Evidence from Scopus. Scientometrics 103 (2015), 213–228.
8. Delanghe, H., Sloan, B., Muldur, U., European research policy and bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics 87 (2011), 389–398.
9. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., Labini, M.S., The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy 35 (2006), 1450–1464.
10. Evans, T.S., Hopkins, N., Kaube, B.S., Universality of performance indicators based on citation and reference counts. Scientometrics 93 (2012), 473–495.
11. Garfield, E., Welljams-Dorof, A., Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluations and policy-making. Science and Public Policy 19 (1992), 321–327.
12. Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics 96 (2013), 381–394.
13. Godin, B., On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 68 (2006), 109–133.
14. Golosovsky, M., Solomon, S., Runaway events dominate the heavy tail of citation distribution. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 205 (2012), 303–311.
15. Harnad, S., Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. Scientometrics 79 (2009), 147–156.
16. Herranz, N., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The end of the european paradox. Scientometrics 95 (2013), 453–464.
17. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Boyack, K., Wouters, P.F., Citation metrics: A primer on how (not) to normalize. PLoS Biology, 14(9), 2016, e1002542.
18. Katz, J.S., What is a complex innovation system?. PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE, 11(6), 2016, e0156150.
19. Leydesdorff, L., Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators. Current Science 89 (2005), 1510–1517.
20. Li, Y., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics 7 (2013), 746–755.
21. Martin, B.R., Irvine, J., Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientiic progress in ratio astronomy. Research Policy 12 (1983), 61–90.
22. Newman, M.E.J., Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Conterporary Physiscs 46 (2005), 323–351.
23. Pawitan, Y., All likelihood: Statistical modelling and interference using likelihood. 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford United Kingdom.
24. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Multiplicative versus fractional counting methods for co-authored publications. The case of the 500 universities in the Leiden Ranking. Journal of Informetrics 9 (2015), 974–989.
25. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teulosky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Numerical recipies, fortran version. 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom.
26. Price, D.S., A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27 (1976), 292–306.
27. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., Castellano, C., Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (2008), 17268–17272.
28. Redner, S., Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review. Physics Today 58 (2005), 49–54.
29. Rodríguez-Navarro, A., A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in countries and institutions. PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE, 6(5), 2011, e20510.
30. Rodríguez-Navarro, A., Measuring research excellence: Number of Nobel Prize achievements versus conventional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Documentation 67 (2011), 582–600.
31. Rodríguez-Navarro, A., Counting highly cited papers for university research assessment: conceptual and technical issues. PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE, 7(10), 2012, e47210.
32. Rodríguez-Navarro, A., Research assessment based on infrequent achievements: A comparison of the United States and Europe in terms of highly cited papers and Noble Prizes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (2016), 731–740.
33. Rodriguez-Navarro, A., Narin, F., European paradox or delusion-Are European science and economy outdated?. Science and Public Policy, 2017, 10.1093/scipol/scx021.
34. Ruiz-Castillo, J., Waltman, L., Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics 9 (2015), 102–117.
35. Ruiz-Castillo, J., The evaluation of citation distribution. SERIEs 3 (2012), 291–310.
36. Stringer, M.J., Sales-Pardo, M., Amaral, L.A.N., Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 61 (2010), 1377–1385.
37. Thelwall, M., Wilson, P., Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years. Journal of Informetrics 8 (2014), 824–839.
38. Thelwall, M., Wilson, P., Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics 8 (2014), 963–971.
39. Thelwall, M., The precision of the aritmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach. Journal of Informetrics 10 (2016), 110–123.
40. Waltman, L., Schreiber, M., On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (2013), 372–379.
41. Waltman, L., van-Eck, N.J., Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting mehod. Journal of Informetrics 9 (2015), 872–894.
42. Zanotto, S.R., Haeffner, C., Guimaraes, J.A., Unbalanced international collaboration affects adversely the usefulness of countries' scientific output as well as their technological and social impact. Scientometrics 109 (2016), 1789–1814.
43. van Noorden, R., A profusion of measures. Nature 465 (2010), 864–866.