Universality of citation distributions-a validation of radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 60, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1664-1670

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a,b   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^a,b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AVERAGE NUMBERS; CITATION DISTRIBUTION; DATA SETS; EVALUATION STUDY; MICRO LEVEL; STANDARD DEVIATION; Z-SCORES;

STATISTICAL TESTS;

PAPER;

EID: 67650869542     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21076     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aksnes, D.W., & Taxt, R.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators : A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
2. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
3. Ball, P. (2008, 20 October). Is physics better than biology? Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081020/ full/news.2008.1169.html
4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008a). The effectiveness of the peer review process: Inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 47(38), 7173-7178.
5. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008b). Selecting manuscripts for a high impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of Communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1841-1852.
6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008c). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: Would it make a difference if a journal editor exchanged one review for another? Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117-125.
8. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). The b index as a measure of scientific excellence. A promising supplement to the h index. Cybermetrics, 11(1), papero.
9. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93-102.
10. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., & Ledin, A. (2008). Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European Molecular Biology Organization programmes. PLoS One, 3(10), e3480.
11. Cox, N.J. (2004). Speaking stata: Graphing distributions. Stata Journal, 4(1), 66-88.
12. Craig, I.D., Plume, A.M., McVeigh, M.E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248.
13. Daniel, H.-D. (1993/2004). Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Published online 16 July 2004, Wiley Interscience, DOI: 10.1002/3527602208.
14. Goldberger, M.L., Maher, B.A., & Flattau, P.E. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States-continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. Gölitz, P. (2005). Who is going to read all this? Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 44(35), 5538-5541.
16. Jackson, C. (1996). Understanding psychological testing. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
17. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154.
18. McAllister, P.R., Narin, F, & Corrigan, J.G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30(4), 205-211.
19. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
20. Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics, 78(2), 219-229.
21. Newman, M.E.J. (2008). The first-mover advantage in scientific publication. Retrieved September 5, 2008, from http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0522v1
22. Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19(3-4), 185-197.
23. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45), 17268-17272.
24. Rousseau, R. (2005). Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators. Scientometrics, 63(3), 431-441.
25. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291.
26. Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3-4), 157-177.
27. Vinkler, P. (1997). Relations of relative scientometric impact indicators. The relative publication strategy index. Scientometrics, 40(1), 163-169.