Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 102-117

  Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^a   Waltman, Ludo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation impact indicators; Classification systems; Clustering methodology; Field normalization; University rankings

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

CITATION IMPACT; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; CLUSTERING METHODOLOGY; FIELD NORMALIZATION; UNIVERSITY RANKINGS;

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

EID: 84919363441     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adams J., Gurney K., Jackson L. Calibrating the zoom - A test of Zitt's hypothesis. Scientometrics 2008, 75:81-95.
2. Albarrán P., Ruiz-Castillo J. References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62:40-49.
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. Ball B., Karrer B., Newman M.E.J. Efficient and principled method for detecting communities in networks. Physical Review E 2011, 84:036103.
5. Bornmann L., Marx W. How good is research really?. EMBO Reports 2013, 14:226-230.
6. Colliander C. A novel approach to citation normalization: A similarity-based method for creating reference sets. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, (in press). 10.1002/asi.23193.
7. Colliander C., Ahlgren P. The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:101-113.
8. 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:e58727.
9. 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. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65:1244-1256.
10. Glänzel W. Characteristic scores and scales: A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1:92-102.
11. 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.
12. Glänzel W., Thijs B., Schubert A., Debackere K. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics 2009, 78:165-188.
13. Gopalan P.K., Blei D.M. Efficient discovery of overlapping communities in massive networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110:14534-14539.
14. Kostoff R.N., Martinez W.L. Is citation normalization realistic?. Journal of Information Science 2005, 31:57-61.
15. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. The operationalization of fields as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of Library and Information Science and Science & Technology Studies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014.
16. Li Y., Castellano C., Radicchi F., Ruiz-Castillo J. Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:746-755.
17. Neuhaus C., Daniel H.-D. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of chemical abstract. Scientometrics 2009, 78:219-229.
18. de Solla Price D.J. Networks of scientific papers. Science 1965, 149:510-515.
19. 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.
20. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America 2008, 105:17268-17272.
21. Rons N. Partition-based field normalization: An approach to highly specialized publication records. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6:1-10.
22. Ruiz-Castillo J. The comparison of classification-system-based normalization procedures with source normalization alternatives in Waltman and Van Eck. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:25-28.
23. Ruiz-Castillo J., Costas R. The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:917-934.
24. Ruiz-Castillo J., Waltman L. Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Working paper 14-03 2014, Universidad Carlos III, http://hdl.handle.net/10016/18385.
25. Schubert A., Glänzel W., Braun T. Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance. Scientometrics 1987, 12:267-292.
26. Seglen P. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1992, 43:628-638.
27. 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.
28. Van Leeuwen T.N., Calero-Medina C. Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics. Research Evaluation 2012, 21:61-70.
29. Waltman L., Schreiber M. On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64:372-379.
30. 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.
31. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics 2013, 96:699-716.
32. 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.
33. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection. European Physical Journal B 2013, 86:471.
34. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J., Van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., Van Raan A.F.J. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:37-47.
35. Waltman L., Calero-Medina C., Kosten J., Noyons E.C.M., Tijssen R.J.W., Van Eck N.J., et al. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63:2419-2432.
36. 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.
37. 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.