论文标题
在经验书目分析中的中位数，百分位数，基准和阈值的中位数
On some properties of medians, percentiles, baselines, and thresholds in empirical bibliometric analysis
论文作者
论文摘要
文献计量学中最有用和最正确的方法论方法之一是排名。在高度偏斜的文献计量分布和异常值引起的严重扭曲的背景下，这通常是可取的分析方式。排名方法严格意味着“应将橙子与橙子，苹果与苹果进行比较”。我们应该进行“喜欢”比较。在不同领域的排名表明，如何将研究单位与该领域的其他单位进行比较。但是，我们是否总是适当地采用“苹果方法”？中位数真的是50％吗，四分位数为25％，第10个百分点a 10％？本文认为，与书籍计量研究过程中的真实意义相比，该术语的理论定义。发现在许多经验案例中，四分位数不是四分之一，中位数不是一半，世界基础不是统一，并且整数阈值导致不同科学领域的绩效评估不平等。
One of the most useful and correct methodological approaches in bibliometrics is ranking. In the context of highly skewed bibliometric distributions and severe distortions caused by outliers, it is often the preferable way of analysis. Ranking methodology strictly implies that "oranges should be compared with oranges, apples with apples". We should make a "like with like" comparison. Ranks in different fields show how a unit under study is compared to others in its field. But do we always apply an "apples approach" appropriately? Is median really a 50%, quartile a 25%, 10th percentile a 10%? The paper considers theoretical definitions of such terms compared to their real sense in the course of bibliometric research. It is found that in many empirical cases quartiles are not quarters, medians are not halves, world baselines are not unity, and integer thresholds lead to inequality of performance evaluation in different science fields.
