The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus
Loet Leydesdorff

TL;DR
This paper discusses the revised SNIP indicator by Elsevier, highlighting its improvements over previous versions and addressing issues of transparency and statistical robustness in scientometric evaluations.
Contribution
It analyzes the modifications in the SNIP indicator, emphasizing the challenges of using arithmetic averages with skewed data and the implications for evaluation transparency.
Findings
The revised SNIP addresses some problems of the original.
Using averages in skewed distributions is problematic.
The indicator's opacity affects evaluation transparency.
Abstract
The modified SNIP indicator of Elsevier, as recently explained by Waltman et al. (2013) in this journal, solves some of the problems which Leydesdorff & Opthof (2010 and 2011) indicated in relation to the original SNIP indicator (Moed, 2010 and 2011). The use of an arithmetic average, however, remains unfortunate in the case of scientometric distributions because these can be extremely skewed (Seglen, 1992 and 1997). The new indicator cannot (or hardly) be reproduced independently when used for evaluation purposes, and remains in this sense opaque from the perspective of evaluated units and scholars.
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.
