6 citations · 19 across the 10 of their papers we have counts for
12 papers
hα: The Scientist as Chimpanzee or Bonobo
Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann, Tobias Opthof
In a recent paper, Hirsch (2018) proposes to attribute the credit for a co-authored paper to the α-author--the author with the highest h-index--regardless of his or her actual cont…
Revisiting Relative Indicators and Provisional Truths
Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof
Following discussions in 2010 and 2011, scientometric evaluators have increasingly abandoned relative indicators in favor of comparing observed with expected citation ratios. The l…
Citation Analysis with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge: A new routine
Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof
Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is here developed for citat…
A Rejoinder on Energy versus Impact Indicators
Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof
Citation distributions are so skewed that using the mean or any other central tendency measure is ill-advised. Unlike G. Prathap's scalar measures (Energy, Exergy, and Entropy or E…
Citation analysis cannot legitimate the strategic selection of excellence
Tobias Opthof, Loet Leydesdorff
In reaction to a previous critique(Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old "crown" indicator in cit…
Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents
Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz +1
We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and s…