  One of the most useful and correct methodological approaches in bibliometrics
is ranking. In the context of highly skewed bibliometric distributions and
severe distortions caused by outliers, it is often the preferable way of
analysis. Ranking methodology strictly implies that "oranges should be compared
with oranges, apples with apples". We should make a "like with like"
comparison. Ranks in different fields show how a unit under study is compared
to others in its field. But do we always apply an "apples approach"
appropriately? Is median really a 50%, quartile a 25%, 10th percentile a 10%?
The paper considers theoretical definitions of such terms compared to their
real sense in the course of bibliometric research. It is found that in many
empirical cases quartiles are not quarters, medians are not halves, world
baselines are not unity, and integer thresholds lead to inequality of
performance evaluation in different science fields.
