Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

2010/03/10 by Anthony F. J. van Raan, Thed N. van Leeuwen, van Raan, Anthony F. J. +7 · 3 citations
Chemistry · Computer Science · Decision Sciences · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Text Analysis Techniques #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #FOS: Physical sciences #History and advancements in chemistry #Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) #cs.DL #physics.soc-ph #scientometrics and bibliometrics research

paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1003.2113

arxiv created 2010/03/10 · openalex publication_date 2010/03/10 · arxiv updated 2010/03/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

We reply to the criticism of Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1002.2769] on the way in which our institute applies journal and field normalizations to citation counts. We point out why we believe most of the criticism is unjustified, but we also indicate where we think Opthof and Leydesdorff raise a valid point.

Citations

• Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance

Cited by

• The danger of pseudo science in Informetrics
• Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields
• Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations

Related

• On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff
• CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre
• Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields
• Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS
• Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations