The comparison of classification-system-based normalization procedures with source normalization alternatives in Waltman and Van Eck (2013)

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 25-28

  Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887548522     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.002     Document Type: Letter

References (16)

1. Bornmann L., Marx W. How good is research really?. EMBO Reports 2013, 14:226-230.
2. Bornmann L. How to analyse percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics: The statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes and top-cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, (in press).
3. Bornmann L., Bowman B.F., Bauer J., Marx W., Schier H., Palzenberger M. Standards for using bibliometrics in the evaluation of research institutes. Next generation metrics 2013, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, (in press).
4. Crespo J.A., Li Y., Ruiz-Castillo J. The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(3):e75872.
5. Crespo J.A., Herranz N., Li Y., Ruiz-Castillo J. The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level. Working Paper 13-03, Universidad Carlos III (http://hdl.handle.net/10016/16327). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, (forthcoming).
6. Li Y., Ruiz-Castillo J. The comparison of normalization procedures based on different classification systems. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:945-958.
7. Li Y., Castellano C., Radicchi F., Ruiz-Castillo J. Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:746-755.
8. 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, 105:17268-17272.
9. 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):1-7.
10. Sirtes D. Finding the easter eggs hidden by oneself: Why Radicchi and Castellano's (2012) fairness test for citation indicators is not fair. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6:448-450.
11. 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 2013, 8:e62395.
12. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63:2378-2392.
13. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:833-849.
14. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics 2013, (in press).
15. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J., Van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S. Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:272-285.
16. Zitt M., Ramana-Rahari S., Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalization. Scientometrics 2005, 63:373-401.