This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: The Italian case. Scientometrics, 95, 311-324.AbramoG.CiceroT.D’AngeloC. A., (2013). National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: The Italian case. Scientometrics, 95, 311–324.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2016a). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators: Rejoinder. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 679-683.AbramoG.D’AngeloC. A., (2016a). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators: Rejoinder. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 679–683.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2016b). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-indpendent indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 646-651.AbramoG.D’AngeloC. A., (2016b). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-indpendent indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 646–651.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Reale, E. (2019). Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications? Scientometrics, 121, 537-554.AbramoG.D’AngeloC. A.RealeE., (2019). Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?Scientometrics, 121, 537–554.Search in Google Scholar
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019829575.AksnesD. W.LangfeldtL.WoutersP., (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019829575.Search in Google Scholar
Aksnes, D. W., Piro, F. N., & Fossum, L. W. (2023). Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 105-126.AksnesD. W.PiroF. N.FossumL. W., (2023). Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 105–126.Search in Google Scholar
Albarrán, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85(1), 329-344.AlbarránP.CrespoJ. A.OrtuñoI.Ruiz-CastilloJ., (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85(1), 329–344.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for information science and technology, 64(2), 217-233BornmannL., (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for information science and technology, 64(2), 217233.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Mutz, R. (2013). The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 158-165.BornmannL.LeydesdorffL.MutzR., (2013). The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 158–165.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Ye, A., & Ye, F. (2018). Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data. Journal of Documentation, 74(2), 278-288.BornmannL.YeA.YeF., (2018). Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data. Journal of Documentation, 74(2), 278–288.Search in Google Scholar
Boylan, G. L., & Cho, B. R. (2012). The normal probability plot as a tool for understanding data: A shape analysis from the perspective of skewness, kurtosis, and variability. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 28(3), 249-264.BoylanG. L.ChoB. R., (2012). The normal probability plot as a tool for understanding data: A shape analysis from the perspective of skewness, kurtosis, and variability. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 28(3), 249–264.Search in Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49, 1-23.BozemanB.SarewitzD., (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49, 1–23.Search in Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450-1464.DosiG.LlerenaP.LabiniM. S., (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. (2022). Science, Reserach and Innovation Performance of the EU. Building a sustainable future in uncertain times. European Commision.European Commission. (2022). Science, Reserach and Innovation Performance of the EU. Building a sustainable future in uncertain times. European Commision.Search in Google Scholar
Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluations and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19(5), 321-327.GarfieldE.Welljams-DorofA., (1992). Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluations and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19(5), 321–327.Search in Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68(1), 109-133.GodinB., (2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68(1), 109–133.Search in Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S., & Glover, M. (2016). Research impact: A narrative review. BMC Medicine, 14, 1-16.GreenhalghT.RafteryJ.HanneyS.GloverM., (2016). Research impact: A narrative review. BMC Medicine, 14, 1–16.Search in Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2009). Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 79, 147-156.HarnadS., (2009). Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 79, 147–156.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.KuhnT., (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators. Current Science, 89(9), 1510-1517.LeydesdorffL., (2005). Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators. Current Science, 89(9), 1510–1517.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343-362.MartinB. R., (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343–362.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254.MartinB. R., (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247–254.Search in Google Scholar
Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizon Inc.NarinF., (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizon Inc.Search in Google Scholar
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (2022). Japanese science and technology indicators 2022(NISTEP research material No. 318). Tokyo: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. https://doi.org/10.15108/m318eNational Institute of Science and Technology Policy, (2022). Japanese science and technology indicators 2022(NISTEP research material No. 318). Tokyo: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. https://doi.org/10.15108/m318eSearch in Google Scholar
Normile, D. (2024). Japan tries, again, to boost global ranking of its universities. Science, 383(6678), 12-13NormileD., (2024). Japan tries, again, to boost global ranking of its universities. Science, 383(6678), 12–13Search in Google Scholar
OECD. (2016). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en.OECD. (2016). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en.Search in Google Scholar
Pendlebury, D. A. (2020). When the data don’t mean what they say: Japan’s comparative underperformance in citation impact. In C. Daraio & W. Glanzel (Eds.), Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-based Research Assessment. Spriger.PendleburyD. A., (2020). When the data don’t mean what they say: Japan’s comparative underperformance in citation impact. In DaraioC.GlanzelW. (Eds.), Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-based Research Assessment. Spriger.Search in Google Scholar
Perianes-Rodriguez, A., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2016). University citation distribution. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2790-2804.Perianes-RodriguezA.Ruiz-CastilloJ., (2016). University citation distribution. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2790–2804.Search in Google Scholar
Poege, F., Harhoff, D., Gaessler, F., & Baruffaldi, S. (2019). Science quality and the value of inventions. Science Advances, 5(12), eaay7323.PoegeF.HarhoffD.GaesslerF.BaruffaldiS., (2019). Science quality and the value of inventions. Science Advances, 5(12), eaay7323.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2024a). Countries pushing the boundaries of knowledge: The USA’s dominance, China’s rise, and the EU’s stagnation. Preprint at arXiv:2402.15263.Rodríguez-NavarroA., (2024a). Countries pushing the boundaries of knowledge: The USA’s dominance, China’s rise, and the EU’s stagnation. Preprint at arXiv:2402.15263.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2024b). Uncertain research country rankings. Should we continue producing uncertain rankings? Preprint at arXiv:2312.17560v2.Rodríguez-NavarroA., (2024b). Uncertain research country rankings. Should we continue producing uncertain rankings?Preprint at arXiv:2312.17560v2.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2018). Double rank analysis for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 31-41.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2018). Double rank analysis for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 31–41.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2019). Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: Basis and use of a robust method of research assessment. Scientometrics, 119(1), 213-235.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2019). Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: Basis and use of a robust method of research assessment. Scientometrics, 119(1), 213–235.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2020a). Like-for-like bibliometric substitutes for peer review: Advantages and limits of indicators calculated from the ep index. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 215-230.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2020a). Like-for-like bibliometric substitutes for peer review: Advantages and limits of indicators calculated from the ep index. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 215–230.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2020b). Might Europe one day again be a global scientific powerhouse? Analysis of ERC publications suggests it will not be possible without changes in research policy. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 872-893.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2020b). Might Europe one day again be a global scientific powerhouse? Analysis of ERC publications suggests it will not be possible without changes in research policy. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 872–893.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2021). Total number of papers and in a single percentile fully describes research impact-Revisiting concepts and applications. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 544-559.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2021). Total number of papers and in a single percentile fully describes research impact-Revisiting concepts and applications. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 544–559.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2022). The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2871-2896.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2022). The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2871–2896.Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2024). Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments. Journal of Informetrics, 18(2), 101503.Rodríguez-NavarroA.BritoR., (2024). Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments. Journal of Informetrics, 18(2), 101503.Search in Google Scholar
Science and Technology Observatory (OST) (2019). Dynamics of scientific production in the world, in Europe and France, 2000-2016. Paris: Hcéres.Science and Technology Observatory (OST), (2019). Dynamics of scientific production in the world, in Europe and France, 2000-2016. Paris: Hcéres.Search in Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2018). The Norwegian model in Norway. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 3-19.SivertsenG., (2018). The Norwegian model in Norway. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 3–19.Search in Google Scholar
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1635-1684.TahamtanI.BornmannL., (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1635–1684.Search in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., PWilson, & Levitt, J. (2023). In which fields are citations indicators of reserach quality? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(8), 941-953.ThelwallM.KoushaK.StuartE.MakitaM.AbdoliM.PWilsonLevittJ., (2023). In which fields are citations indicators of reserach quality?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(8), 941–953.Search in Google Scholar
Traag, V. A., & Waltman, L. (2019). Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0233-xTraagV. A.WaltmanL., (2019). Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0233-xSearch in Google Scholar
Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864-866.Van NoordenR., (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864–866.Search in Google Scholar
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391.WaltmanL., (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.Search in Google Scholar
Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van-Eck, N. J., van-Leeuwen, T. N., van-Raan, A. F. J., Visser, M. S., & Wouters, P. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419-2432.WaltmanL.Calero-MedinaC.KostenJ.NoyonsE. C. M.TijssenR. J. W.van-EckN. J.van-LeeuwenT. N.van-RaanA. F. J.VisserM. S.WoutersP., (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.Search in Google Scholar
Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372-379.WaltmanL.SchreiberM., (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372–379.Search in Google Scholar
Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 authorlevel bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101, 125-158.WildgaardL.SchneiderJ. W.LarsenB., (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 authorlevel bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101, 125–158.Search in Google Scholar