Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance
about
Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis.How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric studyA comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467-481, 2011Brazilian Science between National and Foreign Journals: Methodology for Analyzing the Production and Impact in Emerging Scientific CommunitiesAlternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers.Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.An evaluation of impacts in "Nanoscience & nanotechnology": steps towards standards for citation analysis.Organization level research in scientometrics: a plea for an explicit pragmatic approachComparative Performance of Adult Social Care Research, 1996-2011: A Bibliometric Assessment.Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation.A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators.Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research.How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of scienceHow to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplinesIntegrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implicationsTurning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents
P2860
Q34836858-42EC165D-C33F-4482-8DA2-13D39CC7CFB6Q34996755-F4B9E6D9-C537-4D2F-B6D8-D1188C0DADABQ35157009-4B7C1D7A-52A7-432F-862D-41691CEBBBFAQ36015526-D17D3FF0-FE9E-4DC7-A3AA-04EFB0119B9BQ36101245-A4BD0EF5-58C5-4DE0-AC94-12E817B42638Q36124092-D1EA3F61-E611-4FD1-88FA-EC3F98FD566BQ36503319-06973C14-DE55-4BC2-B0D8-05E3134B7E47Q36598675-87F29AF2-A69B-4CFC-A332-1368D0A0F207Q37177211-5F1AC325-1AEE-49BE-A918-976FDEB134E8Q38638194-B2F6235A-4700-482B-9565-9091ADFEA039Q40253020-5BF9FFD3-D7B9-498B-AED2-06378CE026C2Q42741086-0F981B9A-BD43-4B0D-A2B3-783584AEE386Q57396548-92822D5A-8D40-4AE4-B0EB-D6BC54F90210Q57396550-99B079D4-8798-4FCF-B575-4C12289B465AQ57396552-BBBA5B29-ED32-4329-8516-0842E5AC988CQ57396564-94864E74-3BDF-449E-B1F7-65C8E69B2531
P2860
Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance
description
im Juli 2010 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel
@de
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована в липні 2010
@uk
name
Caveats for the journal and fi ...... ations of research performance
@en
Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS
@nl
type
label
Caveats for the journal and fi ...... ations of research performance
@en
Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS
@nl
prefLabel
Caveats for the journal and fi ...... ations of research performance
@en
Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS
@nl
P1476
Caveats for the journal and fi ...... ations of research performance
@en
P2093
Tobias Opthof
P304
P356
10.1016/J.JOI.2010.02.003
P577
2010-07-01T00:00:00Z