The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator

The effect of two different calculation methods for obtaining relative impact indicators is modelled. Science policy considerations make it clear that evaluating the sets of publications, the “ratio of the sums” method should be preferred over the “mean of the ratios” method. Accordingly, determining the relative total impact against the mean relative impact of the publications of teams or institutes may be preferred. The special problem caused by relating the number of citations of an individual article to the Garfield (Impact) Factor (or mean citedness) of the publishing journal (or a set of journals selected as standard) lower than zero is demonstrated by examples. The possible effects of the different share of publications in different fields on the value of the “new crown” index are also modelled. The assessment methods using several appropriately weighted indicators which result in a composite index are recommended. The acronym “BMV” is suggested to term the relative impact indicators (e.g. RCR, CPP/JCSm, CPP/FCSm and RW) in scientometrics.

► The paper demonstrates through several model experiments that the calculation method: “ratio of the sums” should be preferred over the “mean of the ratios” method. ► The drawbacks of using the “new crown” indicator are analyzed through the effect of the different share of journal papers in different fields and Garfield (Impact) Factors lower than unity. ► The relative scientometric impact indicators (RCR, CPP/JCSm, CPP/FCSm and RW) are suggested to term as “BMV indices” including the initials of the first authors of three different teams introducing these indicators independently.