Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

نویسندگان

  • Anthony F. J. van Raan
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
  • Martijn S. Visser
  • Nees Jan van Eck
  • Ludo Waltman
چکیده

Wereply to the criticismofOpthof andLeydesdorff on theway inwhichour institute applies journal and field normalizations to citation counts. We point out why we believe most of the criticism is unjustified, but we also indicate where we think Opthof and Leydesdorff raise a valid point. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Citation analysis cannot legitimate the strategic selection of excellence

Tobias Opthof 1,2 & Loet Leydesdorff 3 Abstract In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old “crown” indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman et al. (2011a) argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly a...

متن کامل

CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre

The article “Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance”, published by Tobias Opthof and Loet Leydesdorff (Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010), denoted as O&L below, deals with a subject as important as the application of so called field normalized indicators of citation impact in the assessment of research performance of individual resea...

متن کامل

Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS

In their article, entitled “Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations,” Waltman et al. (2010) show that the “old crown indicator” of CWTS in Leiden was mathematically inconsistent and that one should move to the normalization as applied in the “new crown indicator.” Although we now agree about the statistical normalization (Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010; Van Raan et al., 2010)...

متن کامل

The danger of pseudoscience in Informetrics

In their recent paper ‘Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance’ Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) point out that it is important to first ‘multiply and divide’ before ‘adding and subtract’ instead of the other way round, as promoted by the CWTS. In their reply van Raan et al (2010) state that: ‘... the order of operations argument ...

متن کامل

Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields

Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normali...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من

ذخیره در منابع من قبلا به منابع من ذحیره شده

{@ msg_add @}


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • J. Informetrics

دوره 4  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2010