IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i4d10.1007_s11192-020-03830-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

COVID-19, the Yule-Simpson paradox and research evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Zhiqi Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Ronald Rousseau

    (University of Antwerp
    KU Leuven)

Abstract

The Yule-Simpson paradox refers to the fact that outcomes of comparisons between groups are reversed when groups are combined. Using Essential Sciences Indicators, a part of InCites (Clarivate), data for countries, it is shown that although the Yule-Simpson phenomenon in citation analysis and research evaluation is not common, it isn’t extremely rare either. The Yule-Simpson paradox is a phenomenon one should be aware of, otherwise one may encounter unforeseen surprises in scientometric studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhiqi Wang & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "COVID-19, the Yule-Simpson paradox and research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3501-3511, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03830-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03830-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03830-w
    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/s11192-020-03830-w?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. Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 411-432, January.
    2. Suzy Ramanana-Rahary & Michel Zitt & Ronald Rousseau, 2009. "Aggregation properties of relative impact and other classical indicators: Convexity issues and the Yule-Simpson paradox," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 311-327, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jinshan Wu, 2018. "Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion an," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 621-625, April.
    2. M. Zitt, 2011. "Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 329-344, October.
    3. Alexandre Galvão Patriota, 2018. "Is NHST logically flawed? Commentary on: “NHST is still logically flawed”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2189-2191, September.
    4. Marko Hofmann & Silja Meyer-Nieberg, 2018. "Time to dispense with the p-value in OR?," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 193-214, March.
    5. Tom Engsted, 2024. "What Is the False Discovery Rate in Empirical Research?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 21(1), pages 1-92–112, March.
    6. Jesper W. Schneider, 2018. "Response to commentary on “Is NHST logically flawed”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2193-2194, September.
    7. Michel Zitt, 2012. "The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 485-503, August.
    8. Jesper W. Schneider, 2018. "NHST is still logically flawed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 627-635, April.
    9. Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Liying, 2012. "Reflections on the activity index and related indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 413-421.
    10. Williams, Richard & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Sampling issues in bibliometric analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1225-1232.
    11. Peter Ingwersen & Soeren Holm & Birger Larsen & Thomas Ploug, 2021. "Do journals and corporate sponsors back certain views in topics where disagreement prevails?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 389-415, January.
    12. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Cicero, Tindaro, 2016. "Nondeterministic ranking of university departments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 224-237.
    13. Lorna Wildgaard, 2015. "A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 873-906, 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:126:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03830-w. 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.