IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v91y2012i1d10.1007_s11192-011-0516-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quality-quantity-quasity and energy-exergy-entropy exegesis of expected value calculation of citation performance

Author

Listed:
  • Gangan Prathap

    (CSIR National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources)

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of information production processes requires the definition of a robust citation performance indicator. This is particularly so where there is a need to introduce a normalization mechanism for correcting for quality across field and disciplines. In this paper, we offer insights from the “thermodynamic” approach in terms of quality, quantity and quasity and energy, exergy and entropy to show how the recently introduced expected value measure can be rationalized and improved. The normalized energy indicator E is proposed as a suitable single number scalar indicator of a scientist’s or group’s performance (i.e. as a multiplicative product of quality and quantity), when complete bibliometric information is available.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangan Prathap, 2012. "The quality-quantity-quasity and energy-exergy-entropy exegesis of expected value calculation of citation performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 269-275, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:91:y:2012:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0516-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0516-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0516-5
    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/s11192-011-0516-5?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. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Opthof, 2011. "Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1370-1381, July.
    2. Lundberg, Jonas, 2007. "Lifting the crown—citation z-score," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 145-154.
    3. Gangan Prathap, 2011. "The Energy–Exergy–Entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 515-524, June.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2133-2146, November.
    5. 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.
    6. van Raan, Anthony F.J. & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S. & van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2010. "Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 431-435.
    7. Gangan Prathap, 2011. "Quasity, when quantity has a quality all of its own—toward a theory of performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 555-562, August.
    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. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-30, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 355-365, August.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2013. "Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P1," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 933-944.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    6. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    7. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.
    8. Schneider, Jesper W., 2013. "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 50-62.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2012. "A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 745-748, February.
    10. Gangan Prathap, 2012. "Energy indicators and percentile ranking normalization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 997-1003, June.
    11. Larivière, Vincent & Gingras, Yves, 2011. "Averages of ratios vs. ratios of averages: An empirical analysis of four levels of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 392-399.
    12. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of research in polymer solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 889-898, October.
    13. P. Nishy & Yatish Panwar & Suresh Prasad & G. K. Mandal & Gangan Prathap, 2012. "An impact-citations-exergy (iCX) trajectory analysis of leading research institutions in India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 245-251, April.
    14. Gangan Prathap, 2018. "Eugene Garfield: from the metrics of science to the science of metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 637-650, February.
    15. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 467-481, June.
    16. Rons, Nadine, 2012. "Partition-based Field Normalization: An approach to highly specialized publication records," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    17. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    18. Marcello D’Agostino & Valentino Dardanoni & Roberto Ghiselli Ricci, 2017. "How to standardize (if you must)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 825-843, November.
    19. Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2022. "On some properties of medians, percentiles, baselines, and thresholds in empirical bibliometric analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    20. Smolinsky, Lawrence, 2016. "Expected number of citations and the crown indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 43-47.

    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:91:y:2012:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0516-5. 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.