引文分析不能使卓越的战略选择合法化
Citation analysis cannot legitimate the strategic selection of excellence
摘要：
为了回应之前的批评（Opthof & Leydesdorff，2010），莱顿的科学技术研究中心（CWTS）提议将引用分析中的旧“皇冠”指标改为新指标。Waltman等人（2011年）认为，这一变化不会影响各种综合水平的排名。然而，CWTS数据并不公开用于测试和批评。在这封信中，我们使用Van Raan（2006）以前发表的数据来解决引文分析结果与同行评议结果之间如何相关的关键问题。基于同行评审的质量参数与CWTS过去开发的两个参数（CPP/JCSm或CPP/FCSM）以及最近提出的h指数（Hirsch，2005）均无显著相关性。鉴于新旧“冠状病毒”指标之间的高度相关性，可以预期，与基于同行审查的质量指标缺乏相关性的情况同样适用于新制定的指标。
英文摘要：
In reaction to a previous critique(Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old "crown" indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman et al. (2011)argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism. In this correspondence, we use previously published data of Van Raan (2006) to address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past (CPP/JCSm or CPP/FCSm) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch, 2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new "crown" indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones.
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。
