More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 895-906

  Fairclough, Ruth ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Research evaluation; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS; GEOMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

CITATION ANALYSIS; CITATION IMPACT; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; POLICY CHANGES; REGRESSION METHOD; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH PAPERS; SCIENTOMETRICS;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84942522212     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.09.005     Document Type: Article

References (41)

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. Albarrán P., Perianes-Rodríguez A., Ruiz-Castillo J. Differences in citation impact across countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(3):512-525.
4. Baerlocher M.O., Newton M., Gautam T., Tomlinson G., Detsky A.S. The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2007, 55(4):174-180.
5. Bhandari M., Busse J.W., Kulkarni A.V., Devereaux P.J., Leece P., Guyatt G.H. Interpreting authorship order and corresponding authorship. Epidemiology 2004, 15(1):125-126.
6. Braun T., Glänzel W., Grupp H. The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989-1993. Part I. All fields combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics. Scientometrics 1995, 33(3):263-293.
7. de Moya-Anegón F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z., Vargas-Quesada B., Corera-Álvarez E., Muñoz-Fernández F., González-Molina A., et al. Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics 2007, 73(1):53-78.
8. de Solla Price D. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1976, 27(5):292-306.
9. DiCiccio T.J., Efron B. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical Science 1996, 189-212. [see also comments after article].
10. Elsevier International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base - 2013 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013.
11. Engers M., Gans J.S., Grant S., King S.P. First-author conditions. Journal of Political Economy 1999, 107(4):859-883.
12. Franceschet M., Costantini A. The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(2):275-291.
13. Gottfredson S.D. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist 1978, 33(10):920-934.
14. HEFCE The Metric Tide: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (Supplementary Report II to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). HEFCE 2015, 10.13140/RG.2.1.3362.4162.
15. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 2015, 520:429-431.
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. Ingwersen P. The international visibility and citation impact of Scandinavian research articles in selected social science fields: The decay of a myth. Scientometrics 2000, 49(1):39-61.
18. Jiménez-Contreras E., de Moya Anegón F., López-Cózar E.D. The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy 2003, 32(1):123-142.
19. King D.A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004, 430(6997):311-316.
20. Levitt J., Thelwall M. Citation levels and collaboration within Library and Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(3):434-442.
21. Levitt J., Thelwall M. Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(3):575-582.
22. López-Illescas C., de Moya-Anegón F., Moed H.F. Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics 2008, 2(4):304-316.
23. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1989, 40(5):342-349.
24. Marusic A., Bosnjak L., Jeroncic A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(9):e23477.
25. Merton R.K. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
26. Newman M.E. Power laws, pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Physics 2005, 46(5):323-351.
27. Schubert A., Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9(5-6):281-291.
28. Sheskin D. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures 2003, Chapman and Hall, New York.
29. Thelwall M., Fairclough R. Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(2):263-272.
30. Thelwall M., Fairclough R. National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):845-859.
31. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):824-839.
32. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):963-971.
33. van Praag C.M., van Praag B.M.S. The benefits of being economics professor A (rather than Z). Economica 2008, 75:782-796.
34. Van Leeuwen T.N., Moed H.F., Tijssen R.J.W., Visser M.S., Van Raan A.F. First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems. Research Evaluation 2011, 9(2):155-156.
35. van Raan A.F.J. In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics 1998, 43(1):129-148.
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. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):37-47.
38. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., van Raan A.F. Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics 2011, 87(3):467-481.
39. 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(12):2378-2392.
40. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N.J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1501.04431.
41. Zitt M. The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay's article 2011. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):485-503.