Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 746-755

  Li, Yunrong ^a   Radicchi, Filippo ^b   Castellano, Claudio ^c   Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

^c SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Citation inequality; Citation practices; Normalization procedures

Indexed keywords

CITATION ANALYSIS; CITATION DISTRIBUTION; CITATION INEQUALITY; CITATION PRACTICES; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; NORMALIZATION FACTORS; NORMALIZATION PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION;

EID: 84880361633     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations?. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6:645-654.
2. Adler R., Ewing J., Taylor P. Citation statistics. Statistical Science 2009, 24:1-14.
3. Albarrán P., Crespo J., Ortuño I., Ruiz-Castillo J. The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics 2011, 88:385-397.
4. Albarrán P., Ortuño I., Ruiz-Castillo J. The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: Technical results. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:48-63.
5. Albarrán P., Ortuño I., Ruiz-Castillo J. High- and low-impact citation measures: Empirical applications. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:122-145.
6. Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 2008, 64:45-80.
7. Bornmann L., Marx W. How good is research really?. EMBO reports 2013, 14:226-230.
8. Braun T., Glänzel W., Schubert A. Scientometrics indicators. A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact 1985, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, Singapore, Philadelphia.
9. Crespo J.A., Li Y., Herranz N., Ruiz-Castillo J. The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, [in press].
10. Crespo J.A., Li Y., Ruiz-Castillo J. Differences in citation impact across scientific fields. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e58727.
11. Davis P., Papanek G.F. Faculty ratings of major economics departments by citations. American Economic Review 1984, 74:225-230.
12. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006, 69:131-152.
13. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 2006, 295:90-93.
14. Glänzel W. The application of characteristic scores and scales to the evaluation and ranking of scientific journals. Journal of Information Science 2011, 37:40-48.
15. Glänzel W., Schubert A., Thijs B., Debackere K. A priori vs. a posteriori normalization of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking. Scientometrics 2011, 87:415-424.
16. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America 2005, 102:16569-16572.
17. Kinney A.L. National scientific facilities and their science impact on non-biomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of United States of America 2007, 104:17943-17947.
18. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann T. 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 2012, 62:217-229.
19. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:644-646.
20. Leydesdorff L., Radicchi F., Bornmann L., Castellano C., de Nooye W. Field-normalized impact factors: A comparison of rescaling versus fractionally counted ifs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, [in press].
21. Li, Y., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative Evaluation of Alternative Field Normalization Procedures, Working Paper 13-05, Universidad Carlos III (). http://hdl.handle.net/10016/16741.
22. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 1989, 40:342-349.
23. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 1996, 36:435-444.
24. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:265-277.
25. Moed H.F., van Raan A.F.J. Indicators of research performance. Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology 1988, 177-192. North Holland. A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.).
26. Moed H.F., Burger W.J., Frankfort J.G., van Raan A.F.J. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy 1985, 14:131-149.
27. Moed H.F., De Bruin R.E., van Leeuwen Th.N. New bibliometrics tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators, and first applications. Scientometrics 1995, 33:381-422.
28. Pudovkin A.I., Garfield E. Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53:1113-1119.
29. Radicchi F., Castellano C. A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e33833.
30. Radicchi F., Castellano C. Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparisons across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6:121-130.
31. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of United States of America 2008, 105:17268-17272.
32. Schubert A., Braun C. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9:281-291.
33. Schubert A., Braun T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 1996, 36:311-324.
34. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1983). Relative citation rate: A new indicator for measuring the impact of publications, in Tomov, D., & Dimitrova, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the first national conference with international participation in scientometrics and linguistics of scientific text, Varna.
35. Schubert A., Glänzel W., Braun T. A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics 1987, 12:267-292.
36. Schubert A., Glänzel W., Braun T. Against Absolute Methods: Relative Scientometric Indicators and Relational Charts as Evaluation Tools. Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology 1988, 137-176. North Holland. A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.).
37. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L., Van Raan A.F.J., Klautz R.J.M., Peul W.C. Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS ONE 2012, arXiv:1210.0442.
38. Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 1986, 10:157-177.
39. Vinkler P. Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 2003, 58:687-694.
40. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics 2012, [in press]. 10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4.
41. Waltman, L. & van Eck, N.J. (2013) A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators, http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4941.
42. 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 2011, 63:72-77.
43. 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, 59:1856-1860.