Abstract:
An altogether different view on the properties of a good performance measure than that given in Egghe (2012) is offered. Egghe argued that a good impact measure should reward nonconsistency; that is, the more citations over papers are unequally distributed, the higher the impact should be. Here, a quantitative proxy for consistency is offered, and it is shown that as consistency increases, the ideal performance measure, which is sensitive to changes in consistency, should increase, reflecting this virtue.
