Comparison of the effect of mean-based method and z-score for field normalization of citations at the level of Web of Science subject categories

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1679-1693

  Zhang, Zhihui ^a   Cheng, Ying ^a   Liu, Nian Cai ^a  

^a SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Citation distribution; Field normalization; Mean based method; Normalization effect; z score

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939884823     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1294-7     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012a). How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations? Journal of Informetrics,6(4), 645–654.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012b). Revisiting the scaling of citations for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics,6(4), 470–479.
3. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics,88(2), 385–397.
4. 0 at the micro level using data from chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(8), 1664–1670.
5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Enviromental Politics,8, 93–102.
6. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics,19(5–6), 513–521.
7. Castellano, C., & Radicchi, F. (2009). On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis,57(2), 85–90.
8. Crespo, J. A., Li, Y., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields. PLoS One,8(3), e58727.
9. De Bruin, R. E., Kint, A., Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1993). A study of research evaluation and planning: The University of Ghent. Research Evaluation,3(1), 25–41.
10. Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation indexing—Its theory and application in Science, Technology and Humanities. New York: Wiley & Sons.
11. Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics,1(4), 359–375.
12. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Schubert, A., & Debackere, K. (2009). Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics,78(1), 165–188.
13. Katz, J. S. (1999). Bibliometric indicators and the social sciences. Brighton, UK: SPRU, University of Sussex.
14. Katz, J. S. (2000). Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy,27(1), 23–36.
15. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Average of ratios vs. ratio of averages: An empirical analysis of four levels of aggregation. Journal of Informetrics,5(3), 392–399.
16. Lee, G. J. (2010). Assessing publication performance of research units: Extensions through operational research and economic techniques. Scientometrics,84(3), 717–734.
17. Li, Y., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics,7(3), 746–755.
18. Lillquist, E., & Green, S. (2010). The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics,84(3), 749–762.
19. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown—citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics,1(2), 145–154.
20. McAllister, P. R., Narin, F., & Corrigan, J. G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,30(4), 205–211.
21. Moed, H. F. (2010). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research groups’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics,4(3), 436–438.
22. Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics,33(3), 381–422.
23. Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.
24. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics,66(1), 81–100.
25. Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics,4(3), 423–430.
26. Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2011). Rescaling citations of publications in physics. Pysical Review E,83(4), 046116.
27. Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2012). A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions. PLoS One,7(3), e33833.
28. 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.
29. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics,9(5–6), 281–291.
30. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics,36(3), 311–324.
31. Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43(9), 628–638.
32. Spaan, J. A. E. (2010). The danger of pseudoscience in informetrics. Journal of Informetrics,4(3), 439–440.
33. Thompson, B. (1993). GRE percentile ranks cannot be added or averaged: A position paper exploring the scaling characteristics of percentile ranks, and the ethical and legal culpabilities created by adding percentile ranks in making “high-stakes” admission decisions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
34. van Raan, A. F. J., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Waltman, L. (2010a). The new set of bibliometric indicators of CWTS. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, The Netherlands.
35. van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010b). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics,4(3), 431–435.
36. Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics,6(2), 254–264.
37. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 37–47.
38. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2012). Universality of citation distributions revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(1), 72–77.