A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators

10/30/2018
by   Giovanni Abramo, et al.
0

The arguments presented demonstrate that the Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS) and other size-independent indicators based on the ratio to publications are not indicators of research performance. The article provides examples of the distortions when rankings by MNCS are compared to those based on indicators of productivity. The authors propose recommendations for the scientometric community to switch to ranking by research efficiency, instead of MNCS and other size-independent indicators.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
10/30/2018

Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist

In the literature and on the Web we can readily find research excellence...
research
06/22/2022

A new class of composite indicators: the penalized power means

In this paper we propose a new aggregation method for constructing compo...
research
08/05/2021

R&D evaluation methodology based on group-AHP with uncertainty

In this paper, we present an approach to evaluate Research & Development...
research
04/20/2021

Hierarchical entropy and domain interaction to understand the structure in an image

In this study, we devise a model that introduces two hierarchies into in...
research
10/30/2018

A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS

In a previous article of ours, we explained the reasons why the MNCS and...
research
08/29/2018

Revisiting Relative Indicators and Provisional Truths

Following discussions in 2010 and 2011, scientometric evaluators have in...
research
06/07/2017

Usage Bibliometrics as a Tool to Measure Research Activity

Measures for research activity and impact have become an integral ingred...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset