Порівняння методів

	Field-Normalized Citation Impact (MNCS)	Crown Indicator (CPP/FCSm)
Галузь	Бібліометрія	Бібліометрія
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	2011	1995
Автор методу	Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck & colleagues (CWTS Leiden)	Henk F. Moed, R. E. De Bruin & Th. N. Van Leeuwen (CWTS Leiden)
Тип	Field-normalized citation impact indicator	Field-normalized citation impact indicator (ratio of averages)
Основоположне джерело	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.	Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381-422.
Інші назви	Mean Normalized Citation Score, MNCS, normalized citation impact, new crown indicator	CPP/FCSm, old crown indicator, Leiden crown indicator, CWTS crown indicator
Пов'язані	3	3
Підсумок	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 crown indicator, written CPP/FCSm, was the field-normalized citation impact measure developed at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden and described by Moed, De Bruin, and Van Leeuwen in 1995. It compares a unit's observed citation rate with what would be expected given the fields, document types, and years in which it published. Specifically, it divides the citations per publication (CPP) by the mean field citation score (FCSm), forming a ratio in which a value of 1 marks performance exactly at the field average. For more than a decade it was CWTS's flagship indicator, until Waltman and colleagues showed in 2011 that its ratio-of-averages construction had statistical drawbacks and proposed the MNCS as a successor.