The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 110-123

  Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Geometric mean; MNCS; Percentile indicators; Research evaluation; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

GEOMETRY; INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

CITATION ANALYSIS; GEOMETRIC MEAN; MNCS; RESEARCH EVALUATION; SCIENTOMETRICS;

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS;

EID: 84952892230     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):746-761.
2. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(11):2202-2214.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Asmussen S., Rojas-Nandayapa L. Asymptotics of sums of lognormal random variables with Gaussian copula. Statistics and Probability Letters 2008, 78(16):2709-2714. 10.1016/j.spl.2008.03.035.
6. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Mutz R. The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(1):158-165.
7. Box G.E., Hunter W.G., Hunter J.S. Statistics for experimenters 1978, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
8. Brzezinski M. Power laws in citation distributions: Evidence from Scopus. Scientometrics 2015, 103(1):213-228.
9. Chen C. Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(3):431-449.
10. Clauset A., Shalizi C.R., Newman M.E. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review 2009, 51(4):661-703.
11. De Moivre A. The doctrine of chances: Or a method of calculating the probabilities of events in play 1756, Chelsea Publishing Company, New York. 3rd ed.
12. 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.
13. Didegah F., Thelwall M. Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(4):861-873.
14. EC Key figures 2007 2007, 〈ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/era/docs/keyfigures_2007.pdf〉.
15. 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〉.
16. Eom Y.H., Fortunato S. Characterizing and modeling citation dynamics. PLoS One 2011, 6(9):e24926. 10.1371/journal.pone.0024926.
17. Evans T.S., Kaube B.S., Hopkins N. Universality of performance indicators based on citation and reference counts. Scientometrics 2012, 93(2):473-495.
18. Fairclough R., Thelwall M. National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):845-859.
19. Fairclough R., Thelwall M. More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):895-906.
20. Fleming P.J., Wallace J.J. How not to lie with statistics: The correct way to summarize benchmark results. Communications of the ACM 1986, 29(3):218-221.
21. Gillespie C.S. poweRlaw 2013, 〈https://github.com/csgillespie/poweRlaw〉.
22. Gillespie C.S. Fitting heavy tailed distributions: The poweRlaw package. Journal of Statistical Software 2015, 64(2):1-16. 〈http://www.jstatsoft.org/v64/i02/paper〉.
23. Haustein S., Larivière V., Thelwall M., Amyot D., Peters I. Tweets vs Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?. IT-Information Technology 2014, 56(5):207-215.
24. Hilbe J.M. Negative binomial regression 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2nd ed.
25. King D.A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004, 430(6997):311-316.
26. Land C.E. An evaluation of approximate confidence interval estimation methods for lognormal means. Technometrics 1972, 14(1):145-158.
27. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):224-225.
28. Limpert E., Stahel W.A., Abbt M. Lognormal distribution across sciences: Key and clues. Bioscience 2001, 51(5):341-351.
29. Low W.J., Wilson P., Thelwall M. Stopped sum models for citation data. Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (ISSI 2015) 2015, 184-194. Bogaziçi University Printhouse, Istanbul. A.A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A.A. Akdag Salah, C. Sugimoto, U. Al (Eds.).
30. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown-Citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):145-154.
31. MacRoberts M., MacRoberts B. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 1996, 36(3):435-444.
32. NIFU Science and technology indicators 2014 2014, 〈http://www.nifu.no/files/2014/05/Folder2014_WEB_eng.pdf〉.
33. NISTEP Digest of Japanese science and technology indicators 2014 2014, 〈http://data.nistep.go.jp/dspace/handle/11035/2935〉.
34. NSF Science and engineering indicators 2014 2014, 〈http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/〉.
35. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105(45):17268-17272.
36. Perianes-Rodríguez, A., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (in press). University citation distributions. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23619.
37. Salmi J. Research funding and system performance: A review of international higher education systems 2015, Higher Education Funding Council of England, Bristol.
38. Schneider J.W. Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(1):50-62.
39. Schreiber M. How much do different ways of calculating percentiles influence the derived performance indicators? A case study. Scientometrics 2013, 97(3):821-829.
40. Schubert A., Braun T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 1996, 36(3):311-324.
41. Seglen P.O. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1998, 69(3):224-229.
42. Rousseau R. Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators. Scientometrics 2005, 63(3):431-441.
43. Thelwall M., Sud P. National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2016, 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.007.
44. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):824-839.
45. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):963-971.
46. Thelwall, M. & Wilson, P. (in press). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23501.
47. Tijssen R., Visser M., van Leeuwen T. Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?. Scientometrics 2002, 54(3):381-397.
48. van Raan A.F. In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics 1998, 43(1):129-139.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Zhou X.H., Gao S. Confidence intervals for the log-normal mean. Statistics in Medicine 1997, 16(7):783-790.
53. Zitt M. The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay's article 2011. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):485-503.