Inconsistencies of Recently Proposed Citation Impact Indicators and how to Avoid Them

  title={Inconsistencies of Recently Proposed Citation Impact Indicators and how to Avoid Them},
  author={Michael Schreiber},
It is shown that under certain circumstances in particular for small datasets the recently proposed citation impact indicators I3(6PR) and R(6,k) behave inconsistently when additional papers or citations are taken into consideration. Three simple examples are presented, in which the indicators fluctuate strongly and the ranking of scientists in the evaluated group is sometimes completely mixed up by minor changes in the data base. The erratic behavior is traced to the specific way in which… CONTINUE READING
Recent Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 5 times over the past 90 days. VIEW TWEETS


Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 20 extracted citations


Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-4 of 4 references

Acknowledgement I am grateful to two reviewers for very useful suggestions. Especially I thank L. Waltman for the suggestion about the alternative assignment of weights in fractional parts

  • L. Bornmann, R. Mutz
  • 2011
Highly Influential
3 Excerpts

Percentile rank scores are congruous indicators of relative performance or aren’t they?

  • R. Rousseau
  • Journal of Scientometrics and Information…
  • 2011
Highly Influential
7 Excerpts

An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index

  • M. Schreiber
  • Journal of the American Society for Information…
  • 2008
1 Excerpt

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…