Revisiting Relative Indicators and Provisional Truths

08/29/2018
by   Loet Leydesdorff, et al.
0

Following discussions in 2010 and 2011, scientometric evaluators have increasingly abandoned relative indicators in favor of comparing observed with expected citation ratios. The latter method provides parameters with error values allowing for the statistical testing of differences in citation scores. A further step would be to proceed to non-parametric statistics (e.g., the top-10 distributions. In response to a plea for returning to relative indicators in the previous issue of this newsletter, we argue in favor of further progress in the development of citation impact indicators.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
03/23/2017

Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network

It is widely recognized that citation counts for papers from different f...
research
07/31/2017

Comparing People with Bibliometrics

Bibliometric indicators, citation counts and/or download counts are incr...
research
10/30/2018

A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators

The arguments presented demonstrate that the Mean Normalized Citation Sc...
research
03/18/2021

Mapping the impact of papers on various status groups: A new excellence mapping tool based on citation and reader scores

In over five years, Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014) ...
research
10/30/2018

A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS

In a previous article of ours, we explained the reasons why the MNCS and...
research
09/04/2023

Validating corruption risk measures: a key step to monitoring SDG progress

The Agenda 2030 recognises corruption as a major obstacle to sustainable...
research
12/31/2018

Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?

Alternative metrics (aka altmetrics) are gaining increasing interest in ...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset