Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Field-Normalized Citation Impact (MNCS)× | g-Index (Egghe)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Bibliométrie | Bibliométrie |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 2011 | 2006 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck & colleagues (CWTS Leiden) | Leo Egghe |
| Type≠ | Field-normalized citation impact indicator | Author-level cumulative-citation impact index |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47. DOI ↗ | Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. DOI ↗ |
| Alias≠ | Mean Normalized Citation Score, MNCS, normalized citation impact, new crown indicator | Egghe g-index, Egghe index, g index |
| Apparentées | 3 | 3 |
| Résumé≠ | The Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS) is the field-normalized citation impact indicator developed at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden and articulated in Waltman and colleagues' 2011 paper on a new crown indicator. Raw citation counts cannot be compared across fields, because a molecular biology paper and a mathematics paper accumulate citations at vastly different rates, and older papers have had more time to be cited. The MNCS removes these distortions by dividing each paper's citations by the average citations of comparable papers in the same field, document type, and publication year, then averaging these normalized ratios. A value of 1 means performance exactly at the world average for the relevant fields, while values above or below 1 indicate above- or below-average impact. | The g-index, introduced by Leo Egghe in 2006, is an author-level bibliometric indicator designed to repair a structural weakness of Hirsch's h-index: its insensitivity to the size of the most-cited papers. Where the h-index caps the credit any single paper can earn at h, the g-index lets exceptionally cited articles raise an author's score. It is defined as the largest number g such that the g most-cited papers together accumulate at least g-squared citations. Because it rests on cumulative rather than per-paper citation counts, the g-index always equals or exceeds the h-index and rewards researchers whose impact is concentrated in a few landmark works as well as those with broad, steady output. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|