IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2373-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality and impact considerations in bibliometrics: a reply to Ricker (in press)

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

  • Robin Haunschild

    (Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Quality and impact considerations in bibliometrics: a reply to Ricker (in press)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1857-1859, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2373-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2373-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2373-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2373-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Onodera, Natsuo, 2016. "Properties of an index of citation durability of an article," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 981-1004.
    2. Marc Bertin & Iana Atanassova & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Lariviere, 2016. "The linguistic patterns and rhetorical structure of citation context: an approach using n-grams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1417-1434, December.
    3. Christopher Carroll, 2016. "Measuring academic research impact: creating a citation profile using the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1329-1340, November.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 937-943, February.
    5. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "The wisdom of citing scientists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(6), pages 1288-1292, June.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danuta Szpilko & Antonio de la Torre Gallegos & Felix Jimenez Naharro & Agnieszka Rzepka & Angelika Remiszewska, 2023. "Waste Management in the Smart City: Current Practices and Future Directions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Zbigniew Korzeb & Paweł Niedziółka & Danuta Szpilko & Filippo Pietro, 2024. "ESG and climate-related risks versus traditional risks in commercial banking: A bibliometric and thematic review," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. de Carvalho, Gustavo Dambiski Gomes & Sokulski, Carla Cristiane & da Silva, Wesley Vieira & de Carvalho, Hélio Gomes & de Moura, Rafael Vignoli & de Francisco, Antonio Carlos & da Veiga, Claudimar Per, 2020. "Bibliometrics and systematic reviews: A comparison between the Proknow-C and the Methodi Ordinatio," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    2. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    3. Guoqiang Liang & Haiyan Hou & Qiao Chen & Zhigang Hu, 2020. "Diffusion and adoption: an explanatory model of “question mark” and “rising star” articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 219-232, July.
    4. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    5. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    6. Liu, Yunmei & Yang, Liu & Chen, Min, 2021. "A new citation concept: Triangular citation in the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    7. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Adam Y. Ye & Fred Y. Ye, 2017. "Sequence analysis of annually normalized citation counts: an empirical analysis based on the characteristic scores and scales (CSS) method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1665-1680, December.
    9. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2017. "What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 349-369, April.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader ," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 776-788.
    11. Drahomira Herrmannova & Robert M. Patton & Petr Knoth & Christopher G. Stahl, 2018. "Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 239-262, April.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    13. Xiaozan Lyu & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "How do academic topics shift across altmetric sources? A case study of the research area of Big Data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 909-943, May.
    14. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2018. "Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 495-509, October.
    15. Jianhua Hou & Da Ma, 2020. "How the high-impact papers formed? A study using data from social media and citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2597-2615, December.
    16. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    18. Yang, Siluo & Zheng, Mengxue & Yu, Yonghao & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2021. "Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    19. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2018. "Plots for visualizing paper impact and journal impact of single researchers in a single graph," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 385-394, April.
    20. Yashan Li & Jinge Mao & Lin Zhang & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Ying Huang, 2022. "How scientific research incorporates policy: an examination using the case of China’s science and technology evaluation system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5283-5306, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2373-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.