Related papers: The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus
In the first part of this study (Paper I), we introduced the systematic improvement probability (SIP) as a tool to assess the level of improvement on absolute errors to be expected when switching between two computational chemistry methods.…
The use of quantitative indicators of scientific productivity seems now quite widespread for assessing researchers and research institutions. There is a general perception, however, that these indicators are not necessarily representative…
The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on the original disruption index (DI1) and its variants in scientometrics. The DI1 has received much media attention and prompted a public debate about science policy…
In December 2016, after several years of development, Elsevier launched a set of transparent, comprehensive, current, and freely-available journal citation metrics called CiteScore metrics. Most of the CiteScore metrics are static, annual…
This study focuses on a recently introduced type of indicator measuring disruptiveness in science. Disruptive research diverges from current lines of research by opening up new lines. In the current study, we included the initially proposed…
We review the alternative proposals introduced recently in the literature to update the standard formula to estimate the uncertainty on the mean of repeated measurements, and we compare their performances on synthetic examples with normal…
A recently developed measure-theoretic framework solves a stochastic inverse problem (SIP) for models where uncertainties in model output data are predominantly due to aleatoric (i.e., irreducible) uncertainties in model inputs (i.e.,…
In a recent presentation at the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Schneider (2012) criticised the proposal of Bornmann, de Moya Anegon, and Leydesdorff (2012) and Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2012) to use…
In recent years, new indicators known as altmetrics have been introduced to measure the impact of scientific activity. These indicators are obtained through the mentions realised from different social media, existing several aggregators of…
Following Funk and Owen-Smith (2017), Wu et al. (2019) proposed the disruption index (DI1) as a bibliometric indicator that measures disruptive and consolidating research. When we summarized the literature on the disruption index for our…
In an attempt to provide an answer to the increasing criticism against p-values and to bridge the gap between statistical inference and prediction modelling, we introduce the probability of improved prediction (PIP). In general, the PIP is…
For-profit editors such as Elsevier and Springer have been subject to sustained criticism from academics and university libraries, including calls to boycott, and discontinued subscriptions. Mathematicians have played a particularly active…
The recently proposed Euclidean index offers a novel approach to measure the citation impact of academic authors, in particular as an alternative to the h-index. We test if the index provides new, robust information, not covered by existing…
When scientometric indicators are used to compare research units active in different scientific fields, there often is a need to make corrections for differences between fields, for instance differences in publication, collaboration, and…
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem: transforming the publishing industry, shaping hiring…
Allocation of research funding, as well as promotion and tenure decisions, are increasingly made using indicators and impact factors drawn from citations to published work. A debate among scientometricians about proper normalization of…
Bibliometrics plays an increasingly important role in research evaluation. However, no gold standard exists for a set of reliable and valid (field-normalized) impact indicators in research evaluation. This opinion paper recommends that…
Wu et al. (2019) proposed the disruption index (DI1) as a bibliometric indicator that measures disruptive and consolidating research. Leibel and Bornmann (2024) recently published a literature overview on the disruption index research in…
This study presents an abelian group approach to analyzing inconsistency in pairwise comparisons. However, it wrongly assumes that an inconsistency indicator can take values in any abelian linearly ordered group. The followup publication…
The two Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index 2004 and the Social Science Citation Index 2004 were combined in order to analyze and map journals and specialties at the edges and in the overlap between the two databases. For…