Abstract (EN)

The standard data that we use when computing bibliometric rankingsof scientists are just their publication/citation records, i.e., so many paperswith 0 citation, so many with 1 citation, so many with 2 citations, etc.The standard data for bibliometric rankings of departments have the samestructure. It is therefore tempting (and many authors gave in to temptation)to use the same method for computing rankings of scientists and rankingsof departments. Depending on the method, this can yield quite surpris-ing and unpleasant results. Indeed, with some methods, it may happenthat the \best" department contains the \worst" scientists, and only them.This problem will not occur if the rankings satisfy a property called consis-tency, recently introduced in the literature. In this paper, we explore theconsequences of consistency and we characterize two families of consistentrankings.