CWTS皇冠指标衡量研究小组出版物的引用影响力
CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre
摘要：
Tobias Opthof和Loet Leydesdorff（arXiv：1002.2769）发表的文章“CWTS（`Leiden '）研究绩效评估中期刊和领域规范化的注意事项”涉及一个与引用影响的所谓领域规范化指标在评估个人研究人员和研究小组的研究绩效中的应用同样重要的主题。字段规范化旨在说明科学-学术学科领域之间引用实践的差异。作为介绍“莱顿”指标的论文以及报告实际使用这些措施的评估结果的许多报告和文章的主要作者，我对Opthof和Leydesdorff论文中提到的3个主要问题发表了评论。
英文摘要：
The article "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (`Leiden') evaluations of research performance", published by Tobias Opthof and Loet Leydesdorff (arXiv:1002.2769) deals with a subject as important as the application of so called field normalized indicators of citation impact in the assessment of research performance of individual researchers and research groups. Field normalization aims to account for differences in citation practices across scientific-scholarly subject fields. As the primary author of the papers presenting the "Leiden" indicators and of many reports and articles reporting on the outcomes of assessments actually using these measures, I comment on the 3 main issues addressed in the paper by Opthof and Leydesdorff.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
