The target article seems to provide yet another illustration of the classic "It don't make no nevermind" principle in statistical analysis. In particular, relatively simple measures appear to do approximately as well as more complex measures do, even including indicators that represent nonlinear transformations of the simpler measures. The authors…

Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have provided an impressively comprehensive conceptual and empirical psychometric analysis of 22 modern-day citation measures. Their analyses show that although numerous measures have been developed to ameliorate perceived limitations of Hirsch's (2005) "h" index (which is…

Scholarly impact is studied frequently and used to make consequential decisions (e.g., hiring, tenure, promotion, research support, professional honors), and therefore it is important to measure it accurately. Developments in information technology and statistical methods provide promising new metrics to complement traditional information sources…

In their article Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) present a comparative study of some of the different variants of the "h" index. The study evaluates a total of 22 metrics, including the "h" index and "h"-type indices, as well as other conventional measures. The novelty of their work is to a large extent…

Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) evaluate 22 bibliometric indicators, including conventional measures, like the number of publications, the "h" index, and many "h" index variants. To assess the quality of the indicators, their well-justified criteria encompass conceptual, empirical, and practical…

This article presents the author's critique on "Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure," by Anthony F. J. van Raan. It also presents a summary of recent work by the Leiden bibliometrics group, which van Raan has led so ably for more than 15 years. The group has established an excellent…

This article presents a rejoinder on the commentaries regarding the author's focus article titled, "Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure," structuring comments around a number of main topics discussed by the authors of the commentaries. The author presents technical issues…

This article presents the author's critique of Anthony F. J. van Raan's article titled, "Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure." van Raan makes an excellent case for using bibliometric data to measure some central aspects of scientific research and to construct indicators of…

This article presents the author's critique of "Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure," by Anthony F. J. van Raan. The author states that van Raan's article provides an excellent, if tightly compressed, introduction to key findings and innovative methods of the accumulating and…

This article presents an overview of measuring science based on a bibliometric methodology. The 2 main lines of this methodology are discussed. First, the measurement of research performance is addressed, including aspects such as interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and knowledge users. It is demonstrated that advanced bibliometric methods are an…