BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Ludo Waltman

Ludo Waltman appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networksphysics.data-an

Catalog footprint

What is connected

37works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

37 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Funding Covid-19 research: Insights from an exploratory analysis using open data infrastructures

To analyse the outcomes of the funding they provide, it is essential for funding agencies to be able to trace the publications resulting from their funding. We study the open availability of funding data in Crossref, focusing on funding data for publications that report research related to Covid-19. We also present a comparison with the funding data available in two proprietary bibliometric databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Our analysis reveals a limited coverage of funding data in Crossref. It also shows problems related to the quality of funding data, especially in Scopus. We offer recommendations for improving the open availability of funding data in Crossref.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic

We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers scientific documents from the period 2008-2017 covered by these data sources. Scopus is compared in a pairwise manner with each of the other data sources. We first analyze differences between the data sources in the coverage of documents, focusing for instance on differences over time, differences per document type, and differences per discipline. We then study differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links. Based on our analysis, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of the different data sources. We emphasize the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Algorithmic labeling in hierarchical classifications of publications: Evaluation of bibliographic fields and term weighting approaches

Algorithmic classifications of research publications can be used to study many different aspects of the science system, such as the organization of science into fields, the growth of fields, interdisciplinarity, and emerging topics. How to label the classes in these classifications is a problem that has not been thoroughly addressed in the literature. In this study we evaluate different approaches to label the classes in algorithmically constructed classifications of research publications. We focus on two important choices: the choice of (1) different bibliographic fields and (2) different approaches to weight the relevance of terms. To evaluate the different choices, we created two baselines: one based on the Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE and another based on the Science-Metrix journal classification. We tested to what extent different approaches yield the desired labels for the classes in the two baselines. Based on our results we recommend extracting terms from titles and keywords to label classes at high levels of granularity (e.g. topics). At low levels of granularity (e.g. disciplines) we recommend extracting terms from journal names and author addresses. We recommend the use of a new approach, term frequency to specificity ratio, to calculate the relevance of terms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Intermediacy of publications

Citation networks of scientific publications offer fundamental insights into the structure and development of scientific knowledge. We propose a new measure, called intermediacy, for tracing the historical development of scientific knowledge. Given two publications, an older and a more recent one, intermediacy identifies publications that seem to play a major role in the historical development from the older to the more recent publication. The identified publications are important in connecting the older and the more recent publication in the citation network. After providing a formal definition of intermediacy, we study its mathematical properties. We then present two empirical case studies, one tracing historical developments at the interface between the community detection literature and the scientometric literature and one examining the development of the literature on peer review. We show both conceptually and empirically how intermediacy differs from main path analysis, which is the most popular approach for tracing historical developments in citation networks. Main path analysis tends to favor longer paths over shorter ones, whereas intermediacy has the opposite tendency. Compared to main path analysis, we conclude that intermediacy offers a more principled approach for tracing the historical development of scientific knowledge.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Clustering scientific publications based on citation relations: A systematic comparison of different methods

Clustering methods are applied regularly in the bibliometric literature to identify research areas or scientific fields. These methods are for instance used to group publications into clusters based on their relations in a citation network. In the network science literature, many clustering methods, often referred to as graph partitioning or community detection techniques, have been developed. Focusing on the problem of clustering the publications in a citation network, we present a systematic comparison of the performance of a large number of these clustering methods. Using a number of different citation networks, some of them relatively small and others very large, we extensively study the statistical properties of the results provided by different methods. In addition, we also carry out an expert-based assessment of the results produced by different methods. The expert-based assessment focuses on publications in the field of scientometrics. Our findings seem to indicate that there is a trade-off between different properties that may be considered desirable for a good clustering of publications. Overall, map equation methods appear to perform best in our analysis, suggesting that these methods deserve more attention from the bibliometric community.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Conceptual difficulties in the use of statistical inference in citation analysis

In this comment, I discuss the use of statistical inference in citation analysis. In a recent paper, Williams and Bornmann argue in favor of the use of statistical inference in citation analysis. I present a critical analysis of their arguments and of similar arguments provided elsewhere in the literature. My conclusion is that the use of statistical inference in citation analysis involves major conceptual difficulties and, consequently, that the usefulness of statistical inference in citation analysis is highly questionable.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting

The analysis of bibliometric networks, such as co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks, has received a considerable amount of attention. Much less attention has been paid to the construction of these networks. We point out that different approaches can be taken to construct a bibliometric network. Normally the full counting approach is used, but we propose an alternative fractional counting approach. The basic idea of the fractional counting approach is that each action, such as co-authoring or citing a publication, should have equal weight, regardless of for instance the number of authors, citations, or references of a publication. We present two empirical analyses in which the full and fractional counting approaches yield very different results. These analyses deal with co-authorship networks of universities and bibliographic coupling networks of journals. Based on theoretical considerations and on the empirical analyses, we conclude that for many purposes the fractional counting approach is preferable over the full counting one.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus

Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

The elephant in the room: The problem of quantifying productivity in evaluative scientometrics

In a critical and provocative paper, Abramo and D'Angelo claim that commonly used scientometric indicators such as the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) are completely inappropriate as indicators of scientific performance. Abramo and D'Angelo argue that scientific performance should be quantified using indicators that take into account the productivity of a research unit. We provide a response to Abramo and D'Angelo, indicating where we believe they raise important issues, but also pointing out where we believe their claims to be too extreme.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method

Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method for handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choice between full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensive theoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalized results cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting does provide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recommend the use of fractional counting in bibliometric studies that require field normalization, especially in studies at the level of countries and research organizations. We also compare different variants of fractional counting. In general, it seems best to use either the author-level or the address-level variant of fractional counting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications

A fundamental problem in citation analysis is the prediction of the long-term citation impact of recent publications. We propose a model to predict a probability distribution for the future number of citations of a publication. Two predictors are used: The impact factor of the journal in which a publication has appeared and the number of citations a publication has received one year after its appearance. The proposed model is based on quantile regression. We employ the model to predict the future number of citations of a large set of publications in the field of physics. Our analysis shows that both predictors (i.e., impact factor and early citations) contribute to the accurate prediction of long-term citation impact. We also analytically study the behavior of the quantile regression coefficients for high quantiles of the distribution of citations. This is done by linking the quantile regression approach to a quantile estimation technique from extreme value theory. Our work provides insight into the influence of the impact factor and early citations on the long-term citation impact of a publication, and it takes a step toward a methodology that can be used to assess research institutions based on their most recently published work.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks

We present CitNetExplorer, a new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks of scientific publications. CitNetExplorer can for instance be used to study the development of a research field, to delineate the literature on a research topic, and to support literature reviewing. We first introduce the main concepts that need to be understood when working with CitNetExplorer. We then demonstrate CitNetExplorer by using the tool to analyze the scientometric literature and the literature on community detection in networks. Finally, we discuss some technical details on the construction, visualization, and analysis of citation networks in CitNetExplorer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection

We introduce a new algorithm for modularity-based community detection in large networks. The algorithm, which we refer to as a smart local moving algorithm, takes advantage of a well-known local moving heuristic that is also used by other algorithms. Compared with these other algorithms, our proposed algorithm uses the local moving heuristic in a more sophisticated way. Based on an analysis of a diverse set of networks, we show that our smart local moving algorithm identifies community structures with higher modularity values than other algorithms for large-scale modularity optimization, among which the popular 'Louvain algorithm' introduced by Blondel et al. (2008). The computational efficiency of our algorithm makes it possible to perform community detection in networks with tens of millions of nodes and hundreds of millions of edges. Our smart local moving algorithm also performs well in small and medium-sized networks. In short computing times, it identifies community structures with modularity values equally high as, or almost as high as, the highest values reported in the literature, and sometimes even higher than the highest values found in the literature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research

Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations

F1000 is a post-publication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 aims to recommend important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and over 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science

Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost ten million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations, for instance based on bibliographic coupling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing

There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication. In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators

A percentile-based bibliometric indicator is an indicator that values publications based on their position within the citation distribution of their field. The most straightforward percentile-based indicator is the proportion of frequently cited publications, for instance the proportion of publications that belong to the top 10% most frequently cited of their field. Recently, more complex percentile-based indicators were proposed. A difficulty in the calculation of percentile-based indicators is caused by the discrete nature of citation distributions combined with the presence of many publications with the same number of citations. We introduce an approach to calculating percentile-based indicators that deals with this difficulty in a more satisfactory way than earlier approaches suggested in the literature. We show in a formal mathematical framework that our approach leads to indicators that do not suffer from biases in favor of or against particular fields of science.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Research collaboration and the expanding science grid: Measuring globalization processes worldwide

This paper applies a new model and analytical tool to measure and study contemporary globalization processes in collaborative science - a world in which scientists, scholars, technicians and engineers interact within a 'grid' of interconnected research sites and collaboration networks. The building blocks of our metrics are the cities where scientific research is conducted, as mentioned in author addresses on research publications. The unit of analysis is the geographical distance between those cities. In our macro-level trend analysis, covering the years 2000-2010, we observe that research collaboration distances have been increasing, while the share of collaborative contacts with foreign cities has leveled off. Collaboration distances and growth rates differ significantly between countries and between fields of science. The application of a distance metrics to compare and track these processes opens avenues for further studies, both at the meso-level and at the micro-level, into how research collaboration patterns and trends are driving and shaping the connectivity fabric of world science.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator

The SNIP (source normalized impact per paper) indicator is an indicator of the citation impact of scientific journals. The indicator, introduced by Henk Moed in 2010, is included in Elsevier's Scopus database. The SNIP indicator uses a source normalized approach to correct for differences in citation practices between scientific fields. The strength of this approach is that it does not require a field classification system in which the boundaries of fields are explicitly defined. In this paper, a number of modifications that will be made to the SNIP indicator are explained, and the advantages of the resulting revised SNIP indicator are pointed out. It is argued that the original SNIP indicator has some counterintuitive properties, and it is shown mathematically that the revised SNIP indicator does not have these properties. Empirically, the differences between the original SNIP indicator and the revised one turn out to be relatively small, although some systematic differences can be observed. Relations with other source normalized indicators proposed in the literature are discussed as well.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison

Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact. Traditionally, normalization for field differences has usually been done based on a field classification system. In this approach, each publication belongs to one or more fields and the citation impact of a publication is calculated relative to the other publications in the same field. Recently, the idea of source normalization was introduced, which offers an alternative approach to normalize for field differences. In this approach, normalization is done by looking at the referencing behavior of citing publications or citing journals. In this paper, we provide an overview of a number of source normalization approaches and we empirically compare these approaches with a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system. We also pay attention to the issue of the selection of the journals to be included in a normalization for field differences. Our analysis indicates a number of problems of the traditional classification-system-based normalization approach, suggesting that source normalization approaches may yield more accurate results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science

Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in PageRank-inspired indicators). We combine these two ideas in a single indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, and we study the validity of this indicator. Our empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used. The indicator also has a strong tendency to reinforce biases caused by the classification scheme. Based on these observations, we advise against the use of indicators in which the idea of normalization based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing are combined.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Globalisation of science in kilometres

The ongoing globalisation of science has undisputedly a major impact on how and where scientific research is being conducted nowadays. Yet, the big picture remains blurred. It is largely unknown where this process is heading, and at which rate. Which countries are leading or lagging? Many of its key features are difficult if not impossible to capture in measurements and comparative statistics. Our empirical study measures the extent and growth of scientific globalisation in terms of physical distances between co-authoring researchers. Our analysis, drawing on 21 million research publications across all countries and fields of science, reveals that contemporary science has globalised at a fairly steady rate during recent decades. The average collaboration distance per publication has increased from 334 kilometres in 1980 to 1553 in 2009. Despite significant differences in globalisation rates across countries and fields of science, we observe a pervasive process in motion, moving towards a truly interconnected global science system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1102.2569] reanalyze data reported by Van Raan [arXiv:physics/0511206] and conclude that there is no significant correlation between on the one hand average citation scores measured using the CPP/FCSm indicator and on the other hand the quality judgment of peers. We point out that Opthof and Leydesdorff draw their conclusions based on a very limited amount of data. We also criticize the statistical methodology used by Opthof and Leydesdorff. Using a larger amount of data and a more appropriate statistical methodology, we do find a significant correlation between the CPP/FCSm indicator and peer judgment.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

The detection of "hot regions" in the geography of science: A visualization approach by using density maps

Spatial scientometrics has attracted a lot of attention in the very recent past. The visualization methods (density maps) presented in this paper allow for an analysis revealing regions of excellence around the world using computer programs that are freely available. Based on Scopus and Web of Science data, field-specific and field-overlapping scientific excellence can be identified in broader regions (worldwide or for a specific continent) where high quality papers (highly cited papers or papers published in Nature or Science) were published. We used a geographic information system to produce our density maps. We also briefly discuss the use of Google Earth.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

The inconsistency of the h-index

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis) the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Universality of citation distributions revisited

Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano [arXiv:0806.0974, PNAS 105(45), 17268] claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale validation study of this universality-of-citation-distributions claim. Our analysis shows that claiming citation distributions to be universal for all fields of science is not warranted. Although many fields indeed seem to have fairly similar citation distributions, there are quite some exceptions as well. We also briefly discuss the consequences of our findings for the measurement of scientific impact using citation-based bibliometric indicators.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS

VOS is a new mapping technique that can serve as an alternative to the well-known technique of multidimensional scaling. We present an extensive comparison between the use of multidimensional scaling and the use of VOS for constructing bibliometric maps. In our theoretical analysis, we show the mathematical relation between the two techniques. In our experimental analysis, we use the techniques for constructing maps of authors, journals, and keywords. Two commonly used approaches to bibliometric mapping, both based on multidimensional scaling, turn out to produce maps that suffer from artifacts. Maps constructed using VOS turn out not to have this problem. We conclude that in general maps constructed using VOS provide a more satisfactory representation of a data set than maps constructed using well-known multidimensional scaling approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks

In the analysis of bibliometric networks, researchers often use mapping and clustering techniques in a combined fashion. Typically, however, mapping and clustering techniques that are used together rely on very different ideas and assumptions. We propose a unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. We show that the VOS mapping technique and a weighted and parameterized variant of modularity-based clustering can both be derived from the same underlying principle. We illustrate our proposed approach by producing a combined mapping and clustering of the most frequently cited publications that appeared in the field of information science in the period 1999-2008.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight

We present a theoretical and empirical analysis of a number of bibliometric indicators of journal performance. We focus on three indicators in particular, namely the Eigenfactor indicator, the audience factor, and the influence weight indicator. Our main finding is that the last two indicators can be regarded as a kind of special cases of the first indicator. We also find that the three indicators can be nicely characterized in terms of two properties. We refer to these properties as the property of insensitivity to field differences and the property of insensitivity to insignificant journals. The empirical results that we present illustrate our theoretical findings. We also show empirically that the differences between various indicators of journal performance are quite substantial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis

We present an empirical comparison between two normalization mechanisms for citation-based indicators of research performance. These mechanisms aim to normalize citation counts for the field and the year in which a publication was published. One mechanism is applied in the current so-called crown indicator of our institute. The other mechanism is applied in the new crown indicator that our institute is planning to adopt. We find that at high aggregation levels, such as at the level of large research institutions or at the level of countries, the differences between the two mechanisms are very small. At lower aggregation levels, such as at the level of research groups or at the level of journals, the differences between the two mechanisms are somewhat larger. We pay special attention to the way in which recent publications are handled. These publications typically have very low citation counts and should therefore be handled with special care.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations

The crown indicator is a well-known bibliometric indicator of research performance developed by our institute. The indicator aims to normalize citation counts for differences among fields. We critically examine the theoretical basis of the normalization mechanism applied in the crown indicator. We also make a comparison with an alternative normalization mechanism. The alternative mechanism turns out to have more satisfactory properties than the mechanism applied in the crown indicator. In particular, the alternative mechanism has a so-called consistency property. The mechanism applied in the crown indicator lacks this important property. As a consequence of our findings, we are currently moving towards a new crown indicator, which relies on the alternative normalization mechanism.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access