How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 217-229

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a   Bornmann, Lutz ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CITATION DISTRIBUTION; GROUP VARIANCES; IMPACT FACTOR; INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATIONS; SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; WHOLE NUMBERS;

INDEXING (OF INFORMATION);

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 78951493273     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21450     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adler, R., Ewing, J., &, Taylor, P., (2009). Citation statistics: A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Statistical Science, 24 (1), 1-14.
2. Allison, P.D., (1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10 (2), 163-179.
3. Althouse, B.M., West, J.D., Bergstrom, C.T., &, Bergstrom, T., (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 27-34.
4. Bensman, S.J., (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41 (1), 93-155.
5. Bergstrom, C., (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68 (5), 314.
6. Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M.A., &, Van de Sompel, H., (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69 (3), 669-687.
7. Bornmann, L., (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 441-443.
8. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64 (1), 45-80.
9. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., &, Marx, W., (2007). Citation environment of Angewandte Chemie. CHIMIA, 61 (3), 104-109.
10. Brewer, D.J., Gates, S.M., &, Goldman, C.A., (2001). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University.
11. Brumback, R.A., (2008a). Worshiping false idols: The impact factor dilemma. Journal of Child Neurology, 23 (4), 365.
12. Brumback, R.A., (2008b). Response to correspondence, "Worshiping false idols: The impact factor dilemma:" Correcting the record. Journal of Child Neurology, 23 (9), 1092.
13. Cameron, A.C., &, Trivedi, P.K., (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
14. Edge, D., &, Mulkay, M.J., (1976). Fallstudien zu wissenschaftlichen Spezialgebieten [Case studies of scientific specialties]. In, N. Stehr, &, R. König, (Eds.), Wissenschaftsoziologie, Topical issue of the Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (Vol. 18, pp. 197-230). Science Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh [1974 mimeograph].
15. Garfield, E., (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178 (4060), 471-479.
16. Garfield, E., (1979a). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.
17. Garfield, E., (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool ? Scientometrics, 1 (4), 359-375.
18. Garfield, E., (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (1), 90-93.
19. Kamada, T., &, Kawai, S., (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31 (1), 7-15.
20. Laudel, G., &, Origgi, G., (2006). Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 15 (1), 2-4.
21. Leydesdorff, L., (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports ? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (5), 601-613.
22. Leydesdorff, L., (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (2), 278-287.
23. Leydesdorff, L., (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the Bibliometric Toolbox ? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (7), 1327-1336.
24. Leydesdorff, L., &, Amsterdamska, O., (1990). Dimensions of citation analysis. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (3), 305-335.
25. Leydesdorff, L., &, Bensman, S.J., (2006). Classification and powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (11), 1470-1486.
26. Leydesdorff, L., &, Opthof, T., (2010a). 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 and Technology, 61 (11), 2365-2396.
27. Leydesdorff, L., &, Opthof, T., (2010b). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 644-646.
28. Leydesdorff, L., &, Opthof, T., (in press). Scopus' SNIP Indicator: Reply to Moed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
29. Leydesdorff, L., &, Rafols, I., (2010, September). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Paper presented at the 11th Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI), Leiden, The Netherlands.
30. Leydesdorff, L., &, Schank, T., (2008). Dynamic animations of journal maps: Indicators of structural change and interdisciplinary developments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11), 1810-1818.
31. Lucio-Arias, D., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2009). The dynamics of exchanges and references among scientific texts, and the autopoiesis of discursive knowledge. Journal of Informetrics, 3 (2), 261-271.
32. Martyn, J., &, Gilchrist, A., (1968). An evaluation of British scientific journals. London: Aslib.
33. MilojeviÄ, S., (2010). Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 67 (7), 1410-1423.
34. Moed, H.F., (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 265-277.
35. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved July 19, 2010, from
36. 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.
37. Plomp, R., (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19 (3), 185-197.
38. Pringle, J., (2008). Worshiping false idols: The impact factor dilemma: Correcting the record. Journal of Child Neurology, 23 (9), 1092.
39. Pudovkin, A.I., &, Garfield, E., (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (13), 1113-1119.
40. Pudovkin, A.I., &, Garfield, E., (in press). Percentile rank and author superiority indexes for evaluating individual journal articles and the author's overall citation performance. CollNet Journal. Retrieved June 18, 2010, from
41. Rabe-Hesketh, S., &, Skrondal, A., (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
42. Rafols, I., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2009). 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, 60 (9), 1823-1835.
43. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., &, Hills, E., (2007). Show me the data. Journal of Cell Biology, 179 (6), 1091-1092.
44. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., &, Hill, E., (2008). Irreproducible resultsâA response to Thomson Scientific. Journal of General Physiology, 131 (2), 183-184. (Pubitemid 351185798)
45. Rosvall, M., &, Bergstrom, C.T., (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105 (4), 1118-1123.
46. Rosvall, M., &, Bergstrom, C.T., (2010). Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE, 5 (1), e8694.
47. Seglen, P.O., (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (9), 628-638.
48. Sher, I.H., &, Garfield, E., (1965, July). New tools for improving and evaluating the effectiveness of research. In, M.C. Yovits, D.M. Gilford, R.H. Wilcox, E. Staveley, &, H.D. Lemer, (Eds.), Research Program Effectiveness, Proceedings of the Conference Sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (pp. 135-146). New York: Gordon and Breach.
49. Simon, H.A., (1973). The organization of complex systems. In, H.H. Pattee, (Ed.), Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems (pp. 1-27). New York: Braziller.
50. Stringer, M.J., Sales-Pardo, M., &, Amaral, L.A.N., (2010). Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (7), 1377-1385.
51. Testa, J., (2010). Web of Science Coverage Expansion. Retrieved July 19, 2010, from
52. Van Noorden, R., (2010, June 17). A profusion of measures. Nature, 465 (7300), 864-866.
53. 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.
54. Wagner, C., Roessner, J.D., Bobb, K., Klein, J., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., et al. (2009). Evaluating the output of interdisciplinary scientific research: A review of the literature. Unpublished report to the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
55. Waltman, L., &, van Eck, N.J., (2010a). The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (7), 1476-1486.
56. Waltman, L., &, van Eck, N.J., (2010b, September). A general source normalized approach to bibliometric research performance assessment. Paper presented at the 11th Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI), Leiden, The Netherlands.
57. West, J., Althouse, B., Rosvall, M., Bergstrom, T., &, Bergstrom, C., (2008). Eigenfactor Score⢠and Article Influence Scoreâ¢: Detailed methods. Retrieved October 31, 2010, from
58. Zitt, M., (2010). Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the audience factor. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 392-406.
59. Zitt, M., &, Small, H., (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11), 1856-1860.