CWTS的“新冠指示器”（MNCS）遗留问题
Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS
摘要：
Waltman等人（2010年; arXiv：1003.2167）在其题为“Towards a new crown indicator：some theoretical considerations”的文章中指出，莱顿CWTS的“旧冠指标”在数学上不一致，应该采用“新冠指标”中应用的标准化。“尽管我们现在同意统计标准化，但“新冠指标”继承了“旧”指标的科学计量学问题，即把期刊的学科类别作为标准，对科学领域之间的引用行为差异进行标准化。我们进一步注意到，“平均值”不是测量偏态分布之间差异的适当统计量。在不改变“MNS”的缩写的情况下，可以定义“中位数标准化引文评分”。“这将使新冠指标与百分位数方法直接相关，例如，美国国家科学委员会的科学和工程指标（2010年）中使用的百分位数方法。根据定义，中位数等于第50百分位数。因此，该指标可以很容易地扩展为1%（=第99百分位）最高引用论文（Bornmann等人，印刷中）。必须使用非参数统计的表面上的缺点被可能的精度增益所补偿。
英文摘要：
In their article, entitled "Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations," Waltman et al. (2010; at arXiv:1003.2167) show that the "old crown indicator" of CWTS in Leiden was mathematically inconsistent and that one should move to the normalization as applied in the "new crown indicator." Although we now agree about the statistical normalization, the "new crown indicator" inherits the scientometric problems of the "old" one in treating subject categories of journals as a standard for normalizing differences in citation behavior among fields of science. We further note that the "mean" is not a proper statistics for measuring differences among skewed distributions. Without changing the acronym of "MNCS," one could define the "Median Normalized Citation Score." This would relate the new crown indicator directly to the percentile approach that is, for example, used in the Science and Engineering Indicators of US National Science Board (2010). The median is by definition equal to the 50th percentile. The indicator can thus easily be extended with the 1% (= 99th percentile) most highly-cited papers (Bornmann et al., in press). The seeming disadvantage of having to use non-parametric statistics is more than compensated by possible gains in the precision.
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。
