Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations”

Scientometrics - In Schneider (Scientometrics 102:411–432, 2015), the author argues that there is an intrinsic logical problem in null hypothesis significance test and thus urges to use it...     

NHST is still logically flawed

Scientometrics - In this elaborate response to Wu (in Scientometrics, 2018), I maintain that null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is logically flawed. Wu (2018) disagrees with this claim...     

Evaluating the nursing academicians in Turkey in the scope of Web of Science: scientometrics of original articles

Scientometrics - Scientometrics, bibliometrics, webometrics, and informetrics are specific research fields that cover statistical analyses of a particular research field which summarize the...     

The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric

Scientometrics - A recent paper in Scientometrics highlighted how the h-index of an academic can be represented differently by different platforms, for example by Web of Science, Scopus, Google...     

Taking scholarly books into account,part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding

Scientometrics - In May 2016, an article published in Scientometrics, titled ‘Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries’, introduced a...     

Are FT50 journals really leading? A comment on Fassin

Scientometrics - In his recent Scientometrics article, Fassin (2021) asked the following question: Does the FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals? After collecting,...     

Bibliometrics-based decision tree (BBDT) for deciding whether two universities in the Leiden ranking differ substantially in their performance

Scientometrics - Fast-and-frugal heuristics are simple judgement strategies that are based on only a few predictor variables. Bornmann and Marewski (Scientometrics 120(2):419–459, 2019)...     

Reply to Wray

Scientometrics - In this letter, I reply to two insightful remarks made by Wray on a study I recently published on Scientometrics. First, I clarify the method I used to assess the transition of...     

Letter to the editor: comments on the paper of Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti and Tommaso Lando: a theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

Scientometrics - In this discussion we show using results from Bertoli-Barsotti and Lando (Scientometrics, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2351-9 ) that the simplest formula that could be derived...     

Letter to the editor: comments on the paper of Gagolewski et al.: Ockham’s index of citation impact

Scientometrics - In a recent paper in Scientometrics, Gagolewski et al. (2022) elaborated on a 3DSI model (3 dimensions of scientific impact) using a triplet of primary indicators (N, the number of...     

What I have learned from my Google Scholar and H index

Scientometrics - Following Hartley (Scientometrics 118:375–381, 2019) I attempted to draw lessons from my personal Google citations (>?100,000) by reviewing over 100,000 personal...     

Response to comment “hα: the scientist as chimpanzee or bonobo”, by Leydesdorff,Bornmann and Opthof

Scientometrics - In this comment by Leydesdorff, Bornmann and Opthof (Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03004-3 , 2019) the authors criticize the recently proposed...     

The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al.

Scientometrics - The paper authored by Zong et al. (Scientometrics, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03108-w) claims that equipping articles with a video abstract provides them a citation...     

Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles

We welcome the commentary by L. Egghe (Scientometrics, this issue) stimulating discussion on our recent article “Natural selection of academic papers” (NSAP) (Scientometrics, 85(2):553–559, 2010) that focuses on an important modern issue at the heart of the scientific enterprise—the open and continuous evaluation and evolution of research. We are also grateful to the editor of Scientometrics for giving us the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments by L. Egghe that we believe are inaccurate or require further comment.     

Correction to: Internal migration of scientists in Russia and the USA: the case of physicists

Scientometrics - The original article was published without an acknowledgment section. The complete acknowledgment section is given below.     

Correction to: EM-index: a new measure to evaluate the scientific impact of scientists

Scientometrics - In the original publication, Acknowledgements was published with incomplete information. The complete Acknowledgements is given in this correction.     

Comments on some of the statements in the article: The measurement of international scientific collaboration by T. Luukkonen,R. J. W. Tijsen,O. Persson,G. Sivertsen

Scientometrics, 28 (1993) 15.     

Cooperative knowledge creation in an uncertain network environment based on a dynamic knowledge supernetwork

Scientometrics - Cooperative knowledge creation among enterprises is becoming increasingly common in uncertain environments with rapidly changing technology and increasingly complex network...     

Correction to: Year based EM-index: a new approach to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars

Scientometrics - In the original publication, Acknowledgements was published with incomplete information. The complete Acknowledgements is given in the correction.     

Correction to: How R&D partner diversity influences innovation performance: an empirical study in the nano-biopharmaceutical field

Scientometrics - In the original publication of the article, the Acknowledgements section was omitted. The Acknowledgements section is given in this correction.