Waltman Ludo, van Eck Nees Jan, van Leeuwen Thed N, Visser Martijn S, van Raan Anthony F J
Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Scientometrics. 2011 Jun;87(3):467-481. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
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 currently exploring. 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.
我们对研究绩效的基于引用的指标的两种归一化机制进行了实证比较。这些机制旨在对出版物发表的领域和年份的引用次数进行归一化处理。一种机制应用于我们研究所当前所谓的顶级指标。另一种机制应用于我们研究所目前正在探索的新顶级指标。我们发现，在高聚合水平上，例如在大型研究机构层面或国家层面，两种机制之间的差异非常小。在较低聚合水平上，例如在研究小组层面或期刊层面，两种机制之间的差异则稍大一些。我们特别关注近期出版物的处理方式。这些出版物的引用次数通常非常低，因此应特别谨慎地处理。
