Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this comment, we re-evaluate an example using a “thermodynamic” paradigm to show how bibliometrics can incorporate normalization into the evaluative process. The motivation for this is the recent exchange in the pages of this journal from two groups that have taken different positions on how normalization should be done.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0424-8.

  • Prathap, G. (2010). Is there a place for a mock h-index? Scientometrics, 84, 153–165.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3), 157–177.

    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, 87(3), 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011c). On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022.

    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. A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011. Scientometrics 90, 737–743 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0500-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0500-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation