  In a previous article of ours, we explained the reasons why the MNCS and all
similar per-publication citation indicators should not be used to measure
research performance, whereas efficiency indicators (output to input) such as
the FSS are valid indicators of performance. The problem frequently indicated
in measuring efficiency indicators lies in the availability of input data. If
we accept that such data are inaccessible, and instead resort to
per-publication citation indicators, the question arises as to what extent
institution performance rankings by MNCS are different from those by FSS (and
so what effects such results could have on policy-makers, managers and other
users of the rankings). Contrasting the 2008-2012 performance by MNCS and FSS
of Italian universities in the Sciences, we try to answer that question at
field, discipline, and overall university level. We present the descriptive
statistics of the shifts in rank, and the correlations of both scores and
ranks. The analysis reveals strong correlations in many fields but weak
correlations in others. The extent of rank shifts is never negligible: a number
of universities shift from top to non-top quartile ranks.
