Accounting for the Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Percentile Ranks
Loet Leydesdorff

TL;DR
This paper discusses the importance of accounting for uncertainty in percentile rank evaluations, proposing a simplified, computationally efficient method for fractional attribution based on quantiles, and provides software implementation.
Contribution
It introduces a new, less complex routine for fractional attribution of percentile ranks using quantiles, improving upon previous methods.
Findings
Fractional attribution at the level of quantiles is a linear and simpler problem.
The proposed method is computationally efficient and suitable for large document batches.
Software implementing the new routine is made publicly available.
Abstract
In a recent paper entitled "Inconsistencies of Recently Proposed Citation Impact Indicators and how to Avoid Them," Schreiber (2012, at arXiv:1202.3861) proposed (i) a method to assess tied ranks consistently and (ii) fractional attribution to percentile ranks in the case of relatively small samples (e.g., for n < 100). Schreiber's solution to the problem of how to handle tied ranks is convincing, in my opinion (cf. Pudovkin & Garfield, 2009). The fractional attribution, however, is computationally intensive and cannot be done manually for even moderately large batches of documents. Schreiber attributed scores fractionally to the six percentile rank classes used in the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board, and thus missed, in my opinion, the point that fractional attribution at the level of hundred percentiles-or equivalently quantiles as the continuous…
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 · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
