Scopus' SNIP Indicator
Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof
TL;DR
This paper critiques the SNIP indicator's validity, highlighting issues with its normalization approach and lack of error indication, and suggests fractional counting as a potential solution.
Contribution
It provides a critical analysis of the SNIP indicator's methodological flaws and proposes fractional counting to improve its validity.
Findings
SNIP's normalization based on field classifications is invalid.
SNIP does not provide error indication.
Fractional counting may address normalization issues.
Abstract
Rejoinder to Moed [arXiv:1005.4906]: Our main objection is against developing new indicators which, like some of the older ones (for example, the "crown indicator" of CWTS), do not allow for indicating error because they do not provide a statistics, but are based, in our opinion, on a violation of the order of operations. The claim of validity for the SNIP indicator is hollow because the normalizations are based on field classifications which are not valid. Both problems can perhaps be solved by using fractional counting.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topicsscientometrics and bibliometrics research · Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis · Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection