Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The quality-quantity-quasity and energy-exergy-entropy exegesis of expected value calculation of citation performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of information production processes requires the definition of a robust citation performance indicator. This is particularly so where there is a need to introduce a normalization mechanism for correcting for quality across field and disciplines. In this paper, we offer insights from the “thermodynamic” approach in terms of quality, quantity and quasity and energy, exergy and entropy to show how the recently introduced expected value measure can be rationalized and improved. The normalized energy indicator E is proposed as a suitable single number scalar indicator of a scientist’s or group’s performance (i.e. as a multiplicative product of quality and quantity), when complete bibliometric information is available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 441–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2011). Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 228–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS One, 5(10), e11344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Archambault, E., & Coˆte’, G. (2008). Benchmarking of Canadian Genomics—1996–2007. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_Benchmarking_Genomics_Canada.pdf.

  • Gingras, Y., & Lariviere, V. (2011). There are neither ‘‘king’’ nor ‘‘crown’’ in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed ‘‘alternative’’ method of normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 226–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.21609.

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 644–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2011). Remaining problems with the ‘‘new crown indicator’’ (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 224–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370–1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown—citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 436–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010, appendix tables. Arlington, VA, USA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).

  • Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (‘‘Leiden’’) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011a). The Energy–Exergy–Entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 87, 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011b). Quasity, when quantity has a quality all of its own—toward a theory of performance. Scientometrics, 88, 555–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehn, C., & Kronman, U. (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. http://ki.se/content/1/c6/01/79/31/bibliometric_handbook_karolinska_institutet_v_1.05.pdf.

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaan, J. A. E. (2010). The danger of pseudoscience in Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 439–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 431–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011a). Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5.

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011b). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIR National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi, 110 012, India

    Gangan Prathap

Authors
  1. Gangan Prathap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gangan Prathap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prathap, G. The quality-quantity-quasity and energy-exergy-entropy exegesis of expected value calculation of citation performance. Scientometrics 91, 269–275 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0516-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0516-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation