A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators
arXiv:1810.12665 · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.006
Abstract
The arguments presented demonstrate that the Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS) and other size-independent indicators based on the ratio to publications are not indicators of research performance. The article provides examples of the distortions when rankings by MNCS are compared to those based on indicators of productivity. The authors propose recommendations for the scientometric community to switch to ranking by research efficiency, instead of MNCS and other size-independent indicators.
References in corpus (5)
- How do you define and measure research productivity?
- National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level
- Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist
- Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity
- National research assessment exercises: a measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform
Cited by in corpus (8)
- Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement
- The north-south divide in the Italian higher education system
- How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy
- An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level
- Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items
- A novel methodology to assess the scientific standing of nations at field level
- From rankings to funnel plots: the question of accounting for uncertainty when measuring university research performance
- A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS