Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Spearman's Rank Correlation Test01:20

Spearman's Rank Correlation Test

1.6K
Spearman's rank correlation test, also known as Spearman's rho, is a nonparametric method for assessing the strength and direction of association between two variables. This test is particularly valuable when the data distribution is unknown or when the assumption of normality does not hold. Named after the English psychologist and statistician Dr. Charles Edward Spearman, it serves as the nonparametric counterpart to Pearson's correlation coefficient.
Spearman's test calculates correlation by...
1.6K
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test01:14

Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test

4.1K
The F-test is used to compare two sample variances to each other or compare the sample variance to the population variance. It is used to decide whether an indeterminate error can explain the difference in their values. The underlying assumptions that allow the use of the F-test include the data set or sets are normally distributed, and the data sets are independent of each other. The test statistic F is calculated by dividing one variance by another. In other words, the square of one standard...
4.1K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

17.0K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
17.0K
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

4.4K
One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
4.4K
Correlation of Experimental Data01:23

Correlation of Experimental Data

515
Dimensional analysis simplifies complex physical problems and guides experimental investigations, but it does not provide complete solutions. It identifies the dimensionless groups that influence a phenomenon, but experimental data is needed to establish the specific relationships and validate theoretical predictions.
For example, a spherical particle moving through a viscous fluid experiences drag. Dimensional analysis shows that the drag force depends on the particle's diameter, velocity,...
515
Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data01:16

Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data

571
Statistical inference techniques, paramount in hypothesis testing, differentiate into two broad categories: parametric and nonparametric statistics.
Parametric statistics, as the name suggests, assumes that data follow a specific distribution, often a normal distribution. This assumption enables robust hypothesis testing and estimation. Parametric methods, like the Student's t-test or Goodness-of-fit test, are frequently employed in biostatistics due to their robustness. For instance,...
571

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

[Self-citations: the stepchildren of scientometrics?].

Orvosi hetilap·2016
Same author

[Equally or equitably? Author roles and co-author shares in scientific publication].

Orvosi hetilap·2016
Same author

[Law-making "pioneers" of scientometrics].

Orvosi hetilap·2016
Same author

[Is there protection against copying? Thoughts about plagiarism].

Orvosi hetilap·2015
Same author

[Case and studies].

Orvosi hetilap·2015
Same author

[Beyond the impact factor. Reflections on the book of Stefanie Haustein].

Orvosi hetilap·2015

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.3K

[Apples with oranges? Comparison of scientometric indicators between fields].

András Schubert1

  • 1Tudománypolitikai és Tudományelemzési Osztály, MTA Könyvtár és Információs Központ Budapest.

Orvosi Hetilap
|April 12, 2016
PubMed
Summary

Scientometric indicators vary by research field, hindering comparisons. This paper explores methods to normalize publication counts, citation rates, and h-index for reliable cross-field analysis.

Keywords:
cross-field comparisonindicatorsmutatószámokscientometricsszakterületek közötti összehasonlítástudománymetria

More Related Videos

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
07:50

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

Published on: April 18, 2025

1.2K
Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
06:26

Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI

Published on: November 27, 2019

78.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.3K
Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
07:50

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

Published on: April 18, 2025

1.2K
Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
06:26

Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI

Published on: November 27, 2019

78.9K

Area of Science:

  • Bibliometrics and scientometrics
  • Research evaluation
  • Science of science

Background:

  • Scientometric indicators (e.g., publication counts, citation rates, h-index) are field-dependent.
  • This dependency creates reluctance in comparing indicators across diverse research disciplines.
  • Standardized research assessment is crucial for accurate evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and present normalization methods for key scientometric indicators.
  • To enable valid cross-field comparisons of research performance.
  • To address the challenge of field-normalization in bibliometrics.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on scientometric indicator normalization.
  • Analysis of normalization techniques applicable to publication counts, citation rates, and h-index.
  • Discussion of the feasibility and implications of cross-field comparisons.

Main Results:

  • Normalization techniques can adjust for field-specific variations in scientometric indicators.
  • Adjusted indicators (e.g., normalized citation impact, field-weighted citation impact) facilitate cross-field comparisons.
  • The paper identifies and discusses the most promising normalization approaches.

Conclusions:

  • Normalization is essential for overcoming field-dependent biases in scientometric indicators.
  • Implementing normalized indicators allows for more equitable and accurate cross-field research assessment.
  • This work provides a foundation for improved comparative scientometrics.