Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 644-646

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a   Opthof, Tobias ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956453944     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.05.003     Document Type: Letter

References (19)

1. Bensman S.J., Leydesdorff L. Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: Librarianship vs. ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) methods and their effect on citation measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(6):1097-1117.
2. Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (in press) paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 441-443.
3. CWTS. (2008). AMC-specifieke CWTS-analyse 1997-2006. Leiden: CWTS [access via AMC intranet; unpublished, confidential].
4. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1(4):359-375.
5. Glänzel W., Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics 2003, 56(3):357-367.
6. Glänzel W., Thijs B., Schubert A., Debackere K. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics 2009, 78(1):165-188.
7. Leydesdorff L. Relations among science indicators. I. The static model. Scientometrics 1990, 18:281-307.
8. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (in preparation). Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3977.
9. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (in press). Scopus' Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus the Journal Impact Factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.21371.
10. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of informetrics 2007, 1(2):145-154.
11. McAllister P.R., Narin F., Corrigan J.G. Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1983, 30(4):205-211.
12. Moed, H. F. (2010a). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 436-438.
13. Moed, H. F. (2010b). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265-277.
14. Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (" Leiden" ) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423-430.
15. Plomp R. The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics 1990, 19(3):185-197.
16. Pudovkin A.I., Garfield E. Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53(13):1113-1119.
17. Rafols I., Leydesdorff L. Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(9):1823-1835.
18. Small H., Sweeney E. Clustering the science citation index using co-citations. I. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics 1985, 7:391-409.
19. Van Raan, A. F. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 431-435.