Citation analysis cannot legitimate the strategic selection of excellence

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Citation analysis cannot legitimate the strategic selection of excellence
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2569> 


Authors: Tobias Opthof, Loet Leydesdorff

 

Abstract: In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2769> & Leydesdorff, 2010), the Center for
Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old
"crown" indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman et al. (2010)
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632>  argue that this change does not affect
rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly
available for testing and criticism. In this correspondence, we use
previously published data of Van Raan (2006) to address the pivotal issue of
how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer
review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly
correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past
(CPP/JCSm or CPP/FCSm) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch,
2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new "crown"
indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review
based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones. 

 

Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2569 

 

** apologies for cross-postings

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
 <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> loet at leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20110215/8b8296f6/attachment.html>