IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v62y2011i9p1761-1769.html

Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Bouyssou
  • Thierry Marchant

Abstract

The standard data that we use when computing bibliometric rankings of scientists are their publication/ citation records, i.e., so many papers with 0 citation, so many with 1 citation, so many with 2 citations, etc. The standard data for bibliometric rankings of departments have the same structure. It is therefore tempting (and many authors gave in to temptation) to use the same method for computing rankings of scientists and rankings of departments. Depending on the method, this can yield quite surprising and unpleasant results. Indeed, with some methods, it may happen that the “best” department contains the “worst” scientists, and only them. This problem will not occur if the rankings satisfy a property called consistency, recently introduced in the literature. In this article, we explore the consequences of consistency and we characterize two families of consistent rankings.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Bouyssou & Thierry Marchant, 2011. "Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(9), pages 1761-1769, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:62:y:2011:i:9:p:1761-1769
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21544
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.21544?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:62:y:2011:i:9:p:1761-1769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.