recently called the quasity term (citations C received) and a suitable quality measure (say, impact, defined as the ratio of citations to publications, i.e. i = C/P ). The neologism, quasity, needs some explanation. Table 1 draws on some metaphors
were peer reviewed on their quality on a five-point scale. All fields within chemistry were covered by this set of university groups. The author notes that the various specialties exhibit different citation characteristics and that therefore field
The quantity and quality of scientific output of the topmost 50 countries in the four basic sciences (agricultural & biological
sciences, chemistry, mathematics, and physics & astronomy) are studied in the period of the recent 12 years (1996–2007). In
order to rank the countries, a novel two-dimensional method is proposed, which is inspired by the H-index and other methods
based on quality and quantity measures. The countries data are represented in a “quantity–quality diagram”, and partitioned
by a conventional statistical algorithm into three clusters, members of which are rather the same in all of the basic sciences.
The results offer a new perspective on the global positions of countries with regards to their scientific output.
The h -index (Hirsch 2005 ) tries to capture in a single number, the quality and quantity of a scientist's output. Therefore, it quickly gained acceptance compared to practices existing then which performed
Is the impact factor (IF) the best measure of the scientific quality? Or maybe, on the contrary, an obsolete measure of the citations to journals which is erroneously utilized for nearly everything related to the