Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independent index

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 63-71

  Wu, Jiang ^a  

^a WUHAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Field independence; G Index; H Index; Lognormal distributions; Power law distributions; Universality

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; INDEXING (OF INFORMATION);

FIELD INDEPENDENCES; G INDICES; H INDICES; LOG-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; POWER LAW DISTRIBUTION; UNIVERSALITY;

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

EID: 84867457325     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations?. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):645-654.
2. Aksnes D.W. When different persons have an identical author name. How frequent are homonyms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(5):838-841.
3. Alonso S., Cabrerizo F.J., Herrera-Viedma E., Herrera F. h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics 2009, 3(4):273-289.
4. Ball P. Is physics better than biology?. Nature 2008, doi:10.1038/news.2008.1169.
5. Batista P.D., Campiteli M.G., Konouchi O. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. Scientometrics 2006, 68(1):179-189.
6. Bornmann L., Marx W., Schier H., Rahm E., Thor A., Daniel H.-D. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry - Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics 2009, 3(1):27-35.
7. Castellano C., Radicchi F. On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 2009, 57(2):85-90.
8. Clauset A., Shalizi C.R., Newman M.E.J. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review 2009, 51(4):661-703.
9. Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006, 69(1):131-152.
10. Egghe L. Distributions of the h-index and the g-index. ISSI 11 International Conference Scientometrics Informetrics 2007.
11. Egghe L. The Hirsch-index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2010, 44:65-114.
12. Egghe L., Rousseau R. Introduction to informetrics. Quantitative methods in library documentation and information science 1990, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
13. Gurney T., Horlings E., Besselaar P.V.D. Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators. Scientometrics 2012, 91(2):435-449.
14. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
15. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 2010, doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9.
16. Hu X., Rousseau R., Chen J. In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science 2010, 36(1):73-85.
17. Iglesias J., Pecharromán C. Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 2007, 73(3):303-320.
18. Kang I.-S., Na S.-H., Lee S., Jung H., Kim P., Sung W.-K., et al. On co-authorship for author disambiguation. Information Processing & Management 2009, 45(1):84-97.
19. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Normalization, CWTS indicators and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields 2010, http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3977.
20. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
21. Opthof T., Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and fieldnormalizations in the CWTS (" Leiden" ) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):423-430.
22. Opthof T., Leydesdorff L. A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467-481, 2011. Scientometrics 2011, 88(3):1011-1016.
23. Petersen A.M., Wang F., Stanley H.E. Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline. Physics Review E 2010, 81. 036114-036111-036119.
24. Qiu J., Ma R., Cheng N. New exploratory work of evaluating a researcher's output. Scientometrics 2008, 77(2):335-344.
25. Raan A.F.J.v. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 2006, 67:491-502.
26. Raan A.F.J.v., Leeuwen T.N.v., Visser M.S., Eck N.J.v., Waltman L. Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):431-435.
27. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105(45):17268-17272.
28. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Markines B., Vespignani A. Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists. Physics Review E 2009, 80(5):80.056103.
29. Shiffrin R.M. Mapping knowledge domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2004, 101(Suppl. 1):5183-5185.
30. Smalheiser N.R., Torvik V.I. Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2009, 43(1):1-43.
31. Tang L., Walsh J. Bibliometric fingerprints: Name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics 2010, 84(3):763-784.
32. Waltman L., Eck N.J.v., Leeuwen T.N.v., Visser M.S., Raan A.F.J.v. Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics 2011, 87(3):467-481.
33. Waltman L., Eck N.J.v., Leeuwen T.N.v., Visser M.S., Raan A.F.J.v. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):37-47.