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

Paper detail

CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre

The article "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (`Leiden') evaluations of research performance", published by Tobias Opthof and Loet Leydesdorff (arXiv:1002.2769) deals with a subject as important as the application of so called field normalized indicators of citation impact in the assessment of research performance of individual researchers and research groups. Field normalization aims to account for differences in citation practices across scientific-scholarly subject fields. As the primary author of the papers presenting the "Leiden" indicators and of many reports and articles reporting on the outcomes of assessments actually using these measures, I comment on the 3 main issues addressed in the paper by Opthof and Leydesdorff.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
Henk F. Moed
physics.soc-phDigital Libraries
Open graphReviewsDiscussion

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics
Imported metadata coverageMissing code, dataset, citation and institution fields are tracked without dominating the paper.Details
Citations: 0Reviews: 0Saves: 0Code: not linkedDataset: not linkedInstitutions: 0

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Like0Dislike0Score 0

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Save to reading list0
Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Henk F. Moed

Institutions

No institution affiliation has been imported for this paper yet.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form
Log in to review

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form
Log in to comment

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.