Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 336-345

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Leydesdorff, Loet ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Geography of science; Google map; Highly cited papers; I3; Scientific excellence; Spatial scientometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857411740     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Australian Research Council ERA 2010: Citation benchmark methodology 2011, Australian Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
2. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach-using Google maps-based on statistical significance testing. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(10):1954-1962.
3. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Walch-Solimena C., Ettl C. Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(4):537-546.
4. Bornmann L., Mutz R. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):228-230.
5. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Marx W., Schier H., Daniel H.-D. A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: Do the editors of a high-profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 2011, 174(4). 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00689.x.
6. Bornmann L., Waltman L. The detection of hot regions in the geography of science: A visualization approach by using density maps. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(4):547-553.
7. Garcia S.M., Tor A. The n-effect: More competitors, less competition. Psychological Science 2009, 20(7):871-877.
8. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1(4):359-375.
9. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 2006, 295(1):90-93.
10. 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. 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.005.
11. 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.
12. Katz J.S. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 1994, 31(1):31-43.
13. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. 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 2011, 62(2):217-229. 10.1002/asi.21450.
14. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. Integrated Impact Indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(11):2133-2146.
15. Leydesdorff L., Persson O. Mapping the geography of science: Distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(8):1622-1634. 10.1002/Asi.21347.
16. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):265-277. 10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002.
17. Moed H.F., Debruin 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.
18. National Science Board Science and engineering indicators 2010 2010, National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01), Arlington, VA, USA.
19. 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.
20. Ozimek A., Miles D. Stata utilities for geocoding and generating travel time and travel distance information. Stata Journal 2011, 11(1):106-119.
21. Rousseau, R. Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, , in press. doi:10.1002/asi.21684.
22. Schubert A., Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9(5-6):281-291.
23. Sheskin D. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures 2007, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 4th ed.
24. van Noorden R. Cities: Building the best cities for science. Which urban regions produce the best research-and can their success be replicated?. Nature 2010, 467:906-908. 10.1038/467906a.