A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators
Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo
TL;DR
This paper critiques the use of size-independent citation metrics like MNCS, showing they can distort research performance assessments, and advocates for shifting focus to research efficiency metrics.
Contribution
It demonstrates the limitations of MNCS and similar indicators and proposes a transition to efficiency-based rankings for more accurate research evaluation.
Findings
MNCS can distort research performance rankings
Size-independent indicators may misrepresent productivity
Recommendations for adopting efficiency-based metrics
Abstract
The arguments presented demonstrate that the Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS) and other size-independent indicators based on the ratio to publications are not indicators of research performance. The article provides examples of the distortions when rankings by MNCS are compared to those based on indicators of productivity. The authors propose recommendations for the scientometric community to switch to ranking by research efficiency, instead of MNCS and other size-independent indicators.
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.