Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 360-368

  Zhou, Ping ^a   Leydesdorff, Loet ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OF CHINA   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation; Comparison; Department; Evaluation; Fractional; Interdisciplinary

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957623551     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anderson J., Collins P.M.D., Irvine J., Isard P.A., Martin B.R., Narin F., et al. On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output: A cautionary tale. Science and Public Policy 1988, 15:153-161.
2. Ball R., Mittermaier B., Tunger D. Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions - A methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor. Scientometrics 2009, 81(2):381-392.
3. Cronin B. The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication 1984, Taylor Graham, London.
4. Davis P.M. Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(13):2186-2188.
5. Franceschet M. The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(1):55-63.
6. Galam, S. (2010). Integrating multiple coauthorship in the quantitative evaluation of individual's scientific records. Preprint at (30.11.10). http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1007/1007.3708v1.pdf.
7. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1(4):359-375.
8. Garfield E. Arts and humanities journals differ from natural and social sciences journals - But their similarities are surprising. Current Contents 1982, 47:5-11.
9. Gingras Y., Larivière V. There are neither "king" nor "crown" in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed "alternative" method of normalization. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):226-227.
10. Glänzel W., Thijs B., Schubert A., Debackere K. Subfield-specific normalized relative parameters and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics 2009, 78(1):165-188.
11. Glänzel W., Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics 2003, 56(3):357-367.
12. Järvelin K., Persson O. The DCI Index: Discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(9):1433-1440.
13. Leydesdorff L. Problems with the 'measurement' of national scientific performance. Science and Public Policy 1988, 15:149-152.
14. Leydesdorff L. 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 2006, 57(5):601-613.
15. Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(2):278-287.
16. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting 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, 62(2) 217-229.
17. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(4):644-646.
18. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. 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 2010, 61(11):2365-2396.
19. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):224-225.
20. Leydesdorff L., Salah A.A.A. Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 61(4):787-801.
21. Leydesdorff, L. & Shin, J. C. (in press). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
22. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown - citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1:145-154.
23. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):265-277.
24. Moed H.F. The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(1):211-213.
25. Moed H.F., De Bruin R.E., Van Leeuwen T.N. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 1995, 33(3):381-422.
26. Narin F. Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity 1976, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
27. National Science Board (NSB 2010). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/.
28. Nederhof A.J. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics 2006, 66(1):81-100.
29. Neufeld, J., & Von Ins, M. Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics? Research Evaluation; in press.
30. Opthof T., Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (" Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):423-430.
31. Pinski G., Narin F. Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing & Management 1976, 12(5):297-312.
32. Price D.J.de Solla, deBeaver D. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist 1966, 21(11):1011-1018.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Sayyadi, H., & Getoor, L. (2009). FutureRank: Ranking scientific articles by predicting their future PageRank. Paper presented at the Ninth SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. Available from (21.10.10). http://waimea.cs.umd.edu%3a8080/basilic/web/Publications/2009/sayyadi%3Asdm09/sayyadi_futureRank_sdm09.pdf.
36. Schubert A., Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9(5):281-291.
37. Small H., Sweeney E. Clustering the science citation index using co-citations I. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics 1985, 7:391-409.
38. Van Raan A.F.J., Eck N.J.v., Leeuwen T.N.v., Visser M.S., Waltman L. The new set of bibliometric indicators of CWTS. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators 2010, 291-293.
39. Walker D., Xie H., Yan K.K., Maslov S. Ranking scientific publications using a simple model of network traffic. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2007, P06010. 10.1088/1742-5468/2007/06/P06010.
40. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J., Van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., Van Raan A.F.J. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):37-47.
41. Yan E., Ding Y. Weighted citation: An indicator of an article's prestige. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(8):1635-1643.
42. Zitt M. Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the Audience Factor. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):392-406.
43. Zitt M., Ramanana-Rahary S., Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 2005, 63(2):373-401.
44. Zitt M., Small H. Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(11):1856-1860.