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...     

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...     

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.     

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...     

A framework towards bias-free contextual productivity assessment

Scientometrics - Productivity assessment of various actors is one of the major concerns of Scientometrics and is vital for many applications that include policymaking. Popular productivity indices...     

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,...     

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...     

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)...     

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...     

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...     

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...     

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 change from an eponym to a representative name: Wegener to granulomatosis with polyangiitis

Scientometrics - In 2011, professional societies recommended the use of the representative name “Granulomatosis with polyangiitis GPA” followed by the parenthetical eponym...     

Putting personality in context: determinants of research productivity and impact in political science

Scientometrics - Research on the determinants of scholarly productivity is flourishing, driven both by long-standing curiosity about its wide variation, and by recent concern over race and gender...     

System dynamic analysis on industry-university-research institute synergetic innovation process based on knowledge flow

Scientometrics - The industry-university-research institute synergetic innovation (IUR-SI) is a contractual arrangement formed by the core subjects of enterprises, universities, and research...     

Performance model’s development: a novel approach encompassing ontology-based data access and visual analytics

Scientometrics - The quantitative evaluation of research is currently carried out by means of indicators calculated on data extracted and integrated by analysts who elaborate them by creating...     

Standard-relevant publications: evidence,processes and influencing factors

Scientometrics - This paper introduces the concept of standard-relevant publications, complementary to standard-essential patents and framed by the concept of knowledge utilization. By analyzing...     

On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

Opthof and Leydesdorff (Scientometrics, 2011) reanalyze data reported by Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491-502, 2006) and conclude that there is no significant correlation between on the one hand average citation scores measured using the CPP/FCSm indicator and on the other hand the quality judgment of peers. We point out that Opthof and Leydesdorff draw their conclusions based on a very limited amount of data. We also criticize the statistical methodology used by Opthof and Leydesdorff. Using a larger amount of data and a more appropriate statistical methodology, we do find a significant correlation between the CPP/FCSm indicator and peer judgment.