Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods

By Anthony F. J. van Raan. Scientometrics, 2005

806 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/232ab87835ae62370bae330f35d0c2c2a180a6e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups (2005, background): “These technical problems are discussed in Van Raan (2005) and Moed (2005).”
Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review (2008, background): “van Raan (2005a) created a network based on bibliographic coupling.”
The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012, methodology): “An early critical paper on the ARWU ranking was written by Van Raan (2005a; see Liu, Cheng, & Liu, 2005 and Van Raan, 2005b for the ensuing discussion).”
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar (2007, background): “…reported the validity and reliability of citation counts in research assessments as well as the positive correlation between these counts and peer reviews and assessments of publication venues (Aksnes & Taxt, 2004; Glänzel, 1996; Kostoff, 1996; Martin, 1996; Narin, 1976; So, 1998; van Raan, 2000).”
Benchmarking university-industry research cooperation worldwide: performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world's largest universities (2009, background): “…one of the main sources to rank universities by various output-related aspects of their research performance and has been applied in several exploratory studies in recent years, as well as being subject of academic debate (e.g. Van Raan, 2005; Calero-Medina et al, 2008; Kivinen and Hedman, 2008).”
A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015, methodology): “In contrast, bibliometrics has the potential to provide a cheaper, more objective and more informative mode of analysis, although there is general agreement that bibliometrics should only be used in combination with some form of transparent peer review Moed (2007; van Raan, 2005b).”
Comparing university rankings (2010, background): “…of international students, Nobel and other prizes, number of highly cited researchers and papers, articles published in Science and Nature, the h-index and web visibility. van Raan (2005) discussed the conceptual and methodological problems when ranking universities by bibliometric methods.”
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008, background): “With the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship (Swinbanks et al., 1997; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1998; Van Raan, 2005b), the issue is becoming particularly relevant and topical.”
Global and national prominent universities: internationalization, competitiveness and the role of the State (2009, background): “Although these rankings have severe methodological flaws recognized by others (e.g., van Raan 2005) and the authors themselves (Liu and Cheng 2005), they present a good outline of what the ‘‘university world hierarchy’’ is (Jobbins 2005).”