Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields

Details Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields

2010-03-21

arxiv.org/abs/1003.3977v3

Physics

Physics and Society

Scientific paper

Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields. This indicator can also be used to obtain a normalized impact factor.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-316477