Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bibliometrics-based decision tree (BBDT) for deciding whether two universities in the Leiden ranking differ substantially in their performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fast-and-frugal heuristics are simple judgement strategies that are based on only a few predictor variables. Bornmann and Marewski (Scientometrics 120(2):419–459, 2019) introduced bibliometrics-based heuristics (BBHs) which are judgement strategies in evaluative bibliometrics being solely based on publication and/or citation data. To support the understanding and applying of BBHs, Bornmann (in press) proposed bibliometrics-based decision trees (BBDTs) that are visualized BBHs. In this letter to the editor, a BBDT is presented that can be used for the interpretation of results from the Leiden ranking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. In principle, the same BBDT can be generated based on field-specific data provided in the Leiden ranking (e.g., from biomedical and health sciences). The problem with field-specific data is, however, that the coverage of the papers published by the university might not be given to a satisfying extent. Since the Leiden ranking is based on WoS data, the publications of fields such as social sciences and humanities are not sufficiently covered in the database (Mingers and Leydesdorff 2015). In these fields, a corresponding BBDT should not be generated (and applied).

References

  • Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature,490(7420), 335–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports,13(8), 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology,64(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (in press). Bibliometrics-based decision trees (BBDTs) based on bibliometrics-based heuristics (BBHs): Visualized guidelines for the use of bibliometrics in research evaluation. Quantitative Science Studies.

  • Bornmann, L., de Moya Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics,6(2), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Glänzel, W. (2018). Which differences can be expected when two universities in the Leiden Ranking are compared? Some benchmarks for institutional research evaluations. Scientometrics,115(2), 1101–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2700-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marewski, J. N. (2019). Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation. Scientometrics,120(2), 419–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye—Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist,60(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature,520(7548), 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research,246(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. College Station, Texas: Stata Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2018). Responsible metrics: One size doesn’t fit all. In P. Wouters (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2018 in Leiden “Science, Technology and Innovation indicators in transition” (pp. 526–531). Leiden: University of Leiden.

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(12), 2419–2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Lutz Bornmann

Authors
  1. Lutz Bornmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lutz Bornmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bornmann, L. Bibliometrics-based decision tree (BBDT) for deciding whether two universities in the Leiden ranking differ substantially in their performance. Scientometrics 122, 1255–1258 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03319-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03319-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation