Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 872-894

  Waltman, Ludo ^a   van Eck, Nees Jan ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Counting method; Field normalization; Fractional counting; Full counting

Indexed keywords

CITATION ANALYSIS; COUNTING METHOD; FIELD NORMALIZATION; FRACTIONAL COUNTING; FULL COUNTING;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84941889500     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aksnes D.W., Schneider J.W., Gunnarsson M. Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(1):36-43.
2. Albarrán P., Crespo J.A., Ortuño I., Ruiz-Castillo J. A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics 2010, 85(1):329-344.
3. Bornmann L., De Moya Anegón F., Mutz R. Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings?. A latent class analysis with data from the SCImago Ranking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(11):2310-2316.
4. De Solla Price D. Multiple authorship. Science 1981, 212:986.
5. Egghe L. Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(10):1608-1616.
6. Franceschet M., Costantini A. The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(4):540-553.
7. Frandsen T.F., Nicolaisen J. What is in a name?. Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(4):608-617.
8. Gauffriau M., Larsen P.O. Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 2005, 64(1):85-93.
9. Gauffriau M., Larsen P.O., Maye I., Roulin-Perriard A., Von Ins M. Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics 2007, 73(2):175-214.
10. Gauffriau M., Larsen P.O., Maye I., Roulin-Perriard A., Von Ins M. Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods. Scientometrics 2008, 77(1):147-176.
11. Gazni A., Sugimoto C.R., Didegah F. Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(2):323-335.
12. Hagen N.T. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(12):e4021.
13. Herranz N., Ruiz-Castillo J. Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: High- and low-impact citation indicators. Research Evaluation 2012, 21(2):113-125.
14. Herranz N., Ruiz-Castillo J. Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: Average-based citation indicators. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):543-556.
15. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
16. Huang M.H., Lin C.S., Chen D.Z. Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(12):2427-2436.
17. Jones B.F., Wuchty S., Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 2007, 322:1259-1262.
18. Larivière V., Gingras Y., Sugimoto C.R., Tsou A. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(7):1323-1332.
19. Larsen P.O. The state of the art in publication counting. Scientometrics 2008, 77(2):235-251.
20. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (in press). 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.
21. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(11):2365-2369.
22. Lin C.S., Huang M.H., Chen D.Z. The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(3):611-621.
23. Lindsey D. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science 1980, 10(2):145-162.
24. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown-Citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):145-154.
25. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
26. Moya-Anegón F., Guerrero-Bote V.P., Bornmann L., Moed H.F. The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: A promising new approach. Scientometrics 2013, 97(2):421-434.
27. Nicolaisen J. Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2007, 41:609-641.
28. Perianes-Rodríguez A., Ruiz-Castillo J. Multiplicative versus fractional counting methods for co-authored publications: The case of the 500 universities in the Leiden Ranking. Working Paper Economic Series 15-05 2015, Departamento de Economía, Universidad Carlos III of Madrid, Madrid.
29. m-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics 2008, 2(3):211-216.
30. Schreiber M. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics 2008, 10(4):040201.
31. Schreiber M. A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(6):1274-1282.
32. 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(4):e62395.
33. Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):700-711.
34. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators 2015, arXiv:1507.02099.
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(12):2419-2432.
36. Waltman L., Schreiber M. On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(2):372-379.
37. 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(1):37-47.
38. Wuchty S., Jones B.F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316:1036-1039.