A novel approach to citation normalization: A similarity-based method for creating reference sets

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 489-500

  Colliander, Cristian ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

bibliometrics; citation analysis

Indexed keywords

TERMINOLOGY;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES; BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION ANALYSIS; CITATION DISTRIBUTION; CITATION NORMALIZATION; DEGREE OF SIMILARITY; SIMILARITY-BASED METHODS; TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

EID: 84948169025     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23193     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adams, J., Gurney, K., &, Jackson, L., (2008). Calibrating the zoom-A test of Zitt's hypothesis. Scientometrics, 75 (1), 81-95.
2. Ahlgren, P., &, Colliander, C., (2009). Document-document similarity approaches and science mapping: Experimental comparison of five approaches. Journal of Informetrics, 3 (1), 49-63. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.003
3. Ahlgren, P., Colliander, C., &, Persson, O., (2012). Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds. Scientometrics, 92 (3), 767-780.
4. Anastasiu, D.C., &, Karypis, G., (2014). L2AP: Fast Cosine Similarity Search With Prefix L-2 Norm Bounds. Paper presented at the 30th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE '14), Chicago, IL, USA.
5. Arampatzis, A., &, Robertson, S., (2011). Modeling score distributions in information retrieval. Information Retrieval, 14 (1), 26-46.
6. Bornmann, L., &, Marx, W., (2013). How good is research really?-Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons. EMBO Reports, 14 (3), 226-230.
7. Boyack, K.W., &, Klavans, R., (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (12), 2389-2404.
8. Brookes, B.C., (1969). Bradfords law and bibliography of science. Nature, 224 (5223), 953.
9. Cheung, K.Y., &, Lee, S.M.S., (2005). Variance estimation for sample quantiles using the m out of n bootstrap. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 57 (2), 279-290.
10. Colliander, C., &, Ahlgren, P., (2011). 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, 5 (1), 101-113.
11. Colliander, C., &, Ahlgren, P., (2012). Experimental comparison of first and second-order similarities in a scientometric context. Scientometrics, 90, 675-685.
12. Cribbin, T., (2011). Discovering latent topical structure by second-order similarity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (6), 1188-1207.
13. Efron, B., &, Tibshirani, R., (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
14. Egghe, L., &, Rousseau, R., (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publ.
15. Glänzel, W., &, Moed, F.H., (2012). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 90, 381-394.
16. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., &, Czerwon, H.-J., (1999). An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics, 44 (3), 427-439.
17. Hyndman, R.J., &, Fan, Y., (1996). Sample quantiles in statistical packages. The American Statistician, 50 (4), 361-365.
18. Janssens, F., (2007). Clustering of scientific fields by integrating text mining and bibliometrics. (UNpublished doctoral dissertation), Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven.
19. Jasso, G., (1979). On Gini's mean difference and Gini's index of concentration. American Sociological Review, 44 (5), 867-870.
20. Justeson, J.S., &, Katz, S.M., (1995). Technical terminology: Some linguistic properties and an algorithm for identification in text. Natural Language Engineering, 1 (1), 9-27.
21. Kostoff, R.N., (2002). Citation analysis of research performer quality. Scientometrics, 53 (1), 49-71.
22. Kostoff, R.N., &, Martinez, W.L., (2005). Is citation normalization realistic? Journal of Information Science, 31 (1), 57-61.
23. Kviz, F.J., (1981). Interpreting proportional reduction in error measures as percentage of variation explained. Sociological Quarterly, 22 (3), 413-420.
24. Liu, Y., &, Tie, Z., (2011). Automatic extraction and filtration of multiword units.
25. Lundberg, J., (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (2), 145-154.
26. McAllister, P.R., Narin, F., &, Corrigan, J.G., (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-30 (4), 205-211.
27. Moed, H.F., (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
28. Pudovkin, A.I., &, Garfield, E., (2009). Percentile rank and author superiority indexes for evaluating individual journal articles and the author's overall citation performance. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 3 (2), 11-18.
29. Rafols, I., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (9), 1823-1835.
30. Salton, G., &, Buckley, C., (1988). Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 24 (5), 513-523.
31. Schmid, H., (1997). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In, D.B. Jones, &, H.L. Sommers, (Eds.), New methods in language processing. Studies in computational linguistics (pp. 154-164). London: UCL Press.
32. Schubert, A., &, Braun, T., (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36 (3), 311-324.
33. Thijs, B., Schiebel, E., &, Glänzel, W., (2012). Do second-order similarities provide added-value in a hybrid approach? Scientometrics, 96, 667-677. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0896-1
34. Van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., Noyons, E.C.M., &, Buter, R.K., (2010). Automatic term identification for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 82 (3), 581-596.
35. Van Leeuwen, T.N., &, Media, C., (2009). Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics. In, B.L.J. Larsen, (Ed.), Proceedings of issi 2009-12th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (Vol. 1, pp. 411-420). São Paulo: BIREME/PAHO/WHO.
36. Vinkler, P., (1991). Possible causes of differences in information impact of journals from different subfields. Scientometrics, 20 (1), 145-161.
37. Vinkler, P., (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
38. Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., &, van Raan, A.F.J., (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87 (3), 467-481.
39. Yan, E., &, Ding, Y., (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (7), 1313-1326. doi: 10.1002/asi.22680
40. Zitt, M., (2013). Variability of citation behavior between scientific fields and the normalization problem: The "citing-side" normalization in context. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 7 (1), 55-67.