IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v88y2011i3d10.1007_s11192-011-0424-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Opthof

    (Heart Failure Research Center, Academic Medical Center AMC
    University Medical Center)

  • Loet Leydesdorff

    (University of Amsterdam)

Abstract

In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof and Leydesdorff, J Informetr 4(3):423–430, 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 (Scientometrics 87:467–481, 2011a) argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism. Therefore, we comment by using previously published data of Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491–502, 2006) to address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past citations per paper/mean journal citation score (CPP/JCSm) or CPP/FCSm (citations per paper/mean field citation score) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572, 2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new “crown” indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1011-1016, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:88:y:2011:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0424-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0424-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0424-8
    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/s11192-011-0424-8?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. M.H. MacRoberts & B.R. MacRoberts, 2010. "Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. M. H. MacRoberts & B. R. MacRoberts, 1987. "Another test of the normative theory of citing," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 38(4), pages 305-306, July.
    3. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    4. M.H. MacRoberts & B.R. MacRoberts, 2010. "Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom‐cited influences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(2), pages 278-287, January.
    7. Jörg Neufeld & Markus von Ins, 2011. "Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 31-46, March.
    8. Peter van den Besselaar & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 273-288, October.
    9. Opthof, Tobias & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 423-430.
    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. Muzammil Tahira & Rose Alinda Alias & Aryati Bakri, 2013. "Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 865-879, September.
    2. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    3. Santos-Rojo, Cristina & Llopis-Amorós, Malar & García-García, Juan Manuel, 2023. "Overtourism and sustainability: A bibliometric study (2018–2021)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Daisuke Sakai, 2019. "Who is peer reviewed? Comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 65-80, October.
    5. Gangan Prathap, 2012. "A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 737-743, February.
    6. Wu, Jiang, 2013. "Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independent index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-71.
    7. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2012. "A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 745-748, February.
    9. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    10. Jun-Ying Fu & Xu Zhang & Yun-Hua Zhao & He-Feng Tong & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "Scientific production and citation impact: a bibliometric analysis in acupuncture over three decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1061-1079, December.
    11. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1017-1022, September.
    12. Gangan Prathap, 2012. "Energy indicators and percentile ranking normalization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 997-1003, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    3. Zhi Li & Qinke Peng & Che Liu, 2016. "Two citation-based indicators to measure latent referential value of papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1299-1313, September.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    5. Jun-Ying Fu & Xu Zhang & Yun-Hua Zhao & He-Feng Tong & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "Scientific production and citation impact: a bibliometric analysis in acupuncture over three decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1061-1079, December.
    6. Opthof, Tobias & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 423-430.
    7. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    8. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    9. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2012. "A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 745-748, February.
    11. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    14. Horbach, Serge & Aagaard, Kaare & Schneider, Jesper W., 2021. "Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science," MetaArXiv aqyhg, Center for Open Science.
    15. Hu, Zewen & Wu, Yishan, 2014. "Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 136-146.
    16. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    17. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    18. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Aberration of the citation," arabixiv.org gn8zb, Center for Open Science.
    19. Zhou, Ping & Zhong, Yongfeng, 2012. "The citation-based indicator and combined impact indicator—New options for measuring impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 631-638.
    20. Jianhua Hou & Jiantao Ye, 2020. "Are uncited papers necessarily all nonimpact papers? A quantitative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1631-1662, August.

    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:88:y:2011:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0424-8. 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.