24 citations · 58 across the 15 of their papers we have counts for
4 papers · 1 filter
The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000
Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff
The data of F1000 provide us with the unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric metrics on a broad and comprehensive data set with…
The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits
Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff, Ruediger Mutz
Percentiles have been established in bibliometrics as an important alternative to mean-based indicators for obtaining a normalized citation impact of publications. Percentiles have…
Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs
Loet Leydesdorff, Filippo Radicchi, Lutz Bornmann +2
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Ind…
Statistical Tests and Research Assessments: A comment on Schneider (2012)
Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff
In a recent presentation at the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Schneider (2012) criticised the proposal of Bornmann, de Moya Anegon, and Leydes…