How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations?

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 645-654

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a,b   Cicero, Tindaro ^b   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^b  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Citations; Productivity; Research evaluation; Researchers; Scaling; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864411509     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. Measuring science: Irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences. Current Science 2007, 93(6):762-766.
2. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics 2011, 86(2):347-364.
3. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?. Scientometrics 2011, 88(3):915-928.
4. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):470-479.
5. Albarran P., Crespo J.A., Ortuno I., Ruiz-Castillo J. The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Economics working papers, we1038 2011.
6. D'Angelo C.A., Giuffrida C., Abramo G. A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(2):257-269.
7. 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 2010, 5(1):228-230.
8. Gupta H.M., Campanha J.R., Pesce R.A.G. Power-law distributions for the citation index of scientific publications and scientists. Brazilian Journal of Physics 2005, 35(4):981-986.
9. Hurt C.D. Conceptual citation differences in science, technology, and social sciences literature. Information Processing & Management 1987, 23(1):1-6.
10. Leydesdorf An evaluation of impacts in " nanoscience & nanotechnology:" Steps towards standards for citation analysis. 2011 Atlanta conference on science, technology and innovation policy 2011.
11. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L., Mutz R., Opthof T. Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(7):1370-1381.
12. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):145-154.
13. 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.
14. Moed H.F., Glänzel W., Schmoch U. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems 2004, Springer.
15. Peters H.P.F., Van Raan A.F.J. On determinants of citation scores - A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1994, 45(1):39-49.
16. Peterson G.J., Pressé S., Dill K.A. Non universal power law scaling in the probability distribution of scientific citations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010, 107(37):16023-21602.
17. Radicchi F., Castellano C. Rescaling citations of publications in physics. Physical Review E 2011, 83(4):046116.
18. Radicchi F., Castellano C. A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions. PLoS One 2012, 7(3):e33833. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033833.
19. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105(45):17268-17272.
20. Redner How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B 1998, 4(2):131-134.
21. Rehn C., Kronman U., Wadsko D. Bibliometric indicators definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet 2007, Karolinska Institutet University Library, http://kib.ki.se/sites/kib.ki.se/files/Bibliometric_indicators_definitions_1.0.pdf (accessed 13.04.12).
22. Stringer M.J., Sales-Pardo M., Nunes Amaral L.A. 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 2010, 61(7):1377-1385.
23. Thompson B. GRE percentile ranks cannot be added or averaged: A position paper exploring the scaling characteristics of percentile ranks, and the ethical and legal culpabilities created by adding percentile ranks in making " high-stakes" admission decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the mid-south educational research association 1993, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED363637.pdf (accessed 13.04.12).
24. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Raan A.F.J. Universality of citation distributions revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63:72-77.
25. Vieira E.S., Gomes J.A.N.F. Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(1):1-13.
26. Vinkler P. Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 1996, 36(2):223-236.