Reply to Larsen: ”The publication activity of Region Västra Götaland: a critical comment”
Abstract
Introduction
In bibliometric analyses three basic methods for attributing papers to authors, institutions and countries are applied: first author counts, whole counts and fractional counts. In a recent paper, Larsen reviews and criticizes the article “the publication activity of region Västra Götaland: a bibliometric study of an administrative and political Swedish region during the period 1998-2006 (Jarneving, 2009). The focal point in Larsen’s critique is that the “whole counting” method constitutes a problem of “non-additivity”, not considered in the study.
Analysis
It is argued that Larsen does not convincingly elaborate the quality of problems pertaining to the whole counting method nor does he demonstrate the failor of this method with regard to the empirical study criticized. Basic problems of attributing papers to analyzed units applying the fractional fractional counting methods are demonstrated and discussed.
Conclusion
It was concluded that there exists no generally preferred method. In this particular case, fractional counting would have provided with complementary information, however, it would not substitute for the whole counting method.
In bibliometric analyses three basic methods for attributing papers to authors, institutions and countries are applied: first author counts, whole counts and fractional counts. In a recent paper, Larsen reviews and criticizes the article “the publication activity of region Västra Götaland: a bibliometric study of an administrative and political Swedish region during the period 1998-2006 (Jarneving, 2009). The focal point in Larsen’s critique is that the “whole counting” method constitutes a problem of “non-additivity”, not considered in the study.
Analysis
It is argued that Larsen does not convincingly elaborate the quality of problems pertaining to the whole counting method nor does he demonstrate the failor of this method with regard to the empirical study criticized. Basic problems of attributing papers to analyzed units applying the fractional fractional counting methods are demonstrated and discussed.
Conclusion
It was concluded that there exists no generally preferred method. In this particular case, fractional counting would have provided with complementary information, however, it would not substitute for the whole counting method.