Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation

Scientometrics

Volumn 94, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 851-872

  Wang, Jian ^a  

^a Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ)   (Germany)

Author keywords

Citation ageing; Citation time window; Field normalization; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873701982     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abbott, A. (2009). Italy introduces performance-related funding. Nature, 460(7255), 559. doi: 10. 1038/460559a.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2011). Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659-667. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2011. 06. 004.
3. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012a). A sensitivity analysis of research institutions' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 298-306. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2011. 11. 005.
4. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012b). A sensitivity analysis of researchers' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 192-201. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2011. 12. 003.
5. Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567-581.
6. Aksnes, D. W. (2003a). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170.
7. Aksnes, D. W. (2003b). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235-246. doi: 10. 1023/a: 1021919228368.
8. Aversa, E. S. (1985). Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: A study of the working literature. Scientometrics, 7(3), 383-389.
9. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010). Is scientific literature subject to a 'Sell By Date'? A general methodology to analyze the 'durability'of scientific documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 329-339.
10. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). The "Mendel syndrome" in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists. Scientometrics, 89(1), 177-205.
11. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the Science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
12. Garfield, E. (1980). Premature discovery or delayed recognition-why. Current Contents, 21, 5-10.
13. Garfield, E. (1985a). The articles most cited in the SCI from 1961 to 1982. 7. Another 100 citation-classics-the Watson-Crick double helix has its turn. Current Contents, 20, 3-12.
14. Garfield, E. (1985b). The articles most cited in the SCI from 1961 to 1982. 8. Ninety-eight more classic papers from unimolecular reaction velocities to natural opiates-the changing frontiers of science. Current Contents, 33, 3-11.
15. Garfield, E. (1986). Letter to editor. Information Processing and Management, 22(5), 445.
16. Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. In H. Kretschmer & F. Havemann (Eds.), Proceedings of WIS 2008 (pp. 1-10). Germany: Berlin.
17. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263-277. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-006-0098-9.
18. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58(3), 571-586.
19. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of information Science, 21(1), 37-53.
20. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311-316. doi: 10. 1038/430311a.
21. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects. Scientometrics, 77(1), 41-60.
22. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 278-287. doi: 10. 1002/Asi. 20743.
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. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21024.
24. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 644-646. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2010. 05. 003.
25. Line, M. B. (1993). Changes in the use of literature with time: Obsolescence revisited. Library Trends, 41(4), 665-683.
26. Moed, H. F., Burger, W., Frankfort, J., & van Raan, A. (1985). The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3), 177-203. doi: 10. 1007/bf02016935.
27. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998). A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 387-419.
28. Porter, A. L. (1977). Citation analysis: Queries and caveats. Social Studies of Science, 7(2), 257-267. doi: 10. 1177/030631277700700207.
29. Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2011). Rescaling citations of publications in physics. Physical Review E, 83(4), 046116.
30. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17268-17272. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0806977105.
31. Rogers, J. D. (2010). Citation analysis of nanotechnology at the field level: Implications of RD evaluation. Research Evaluation, 19(4), 281-290.
32. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36(3), 311-324. doi: 10. 1007/bf02129597.
33. Stent, G. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227(6), 84-93.
34. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467-472.
35. Walters, G. D. (2011). The citation life cycle of articles published in 13 American Psychological Association journals: A 25-year longitudinal analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1629-1636. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21560.