  In reaction to a previous critique(Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010), the Center
for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their
old "crown" indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman et al.
(2011)argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated
levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism.
In this correspondence, we use previously published data of Van Raan (2006) to
address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate
with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was
neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS
in the past (CPP/JCSm or CPP/FCSm) nor with the more recently proposed h-index
(Hirsch, 2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new "crown"
indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review
based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones.
