An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 324-335

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^a,b   Soldatenkova, Anastasiia ^b  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; CSS; FSS; Italy; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATES; FRACTALS; HIGHER ORDER STATISTICS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DISCIPLINE LEVELS; DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS; EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION; ITALY; PRODUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTION; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY;

PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 85013040788     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., How do you define and measure research productivity?. Scientometrics 101:2 (2014), 1129–1144.
2. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators. Journal of Informetrics 10:2 (2016), 646–651.
3. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators: Rejoinder. Journal of Informetrics 10:2 (2016), 679–683.
4. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., D'Angelo, C.A., Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics 6:4 (2012), 470–479.
5. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., Rosati, F., The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. Journal of Informetrics 7:1 (2013), 198–208.
6. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J.A., Ortuño, I., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88, 2011, 385.
7. Bornmann, L., Glänzel, W., Applying the CSS method to bibliometric indicators used in (university) rankings. Scientometrics, 2017, 10.1007/s11192-016-2198-5 [in press].
8. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data. Journal of Informetrics, 2017 [in press].
9. Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, A., Chakrabarti, B.K., Universality of citation distributions for academic institutions and journals. Public Library Of Science, 11(1), 2016.
10. D'Angelo, C.A., Giuffrida, C., Abramo, G., A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62:2 (2011), 257–269.
11. Franceschet, M., The skewness of computer science. Information Processing & Management 47:1 (2011), 117–124.
12. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. Journal of Information Science 14:2 (1988), 123–127.
13. Glänzel, W., The application of characteristic scores and scales to the evaluation and ranking of scientific journals. Journal of Information Science 37:1 (2011), 40–48.
14. Groeneveld, R.A., Meeden, G., Measuring skewness and kurtosis. The Statistician 33:4 (1984), 391–399.
15. Lotka, A.J., The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences 16:12 (1926), 317–324.
16. Ruiz-Castillo, J., Costas, R., The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics 8:4 (2014), 917–934.
17. Ruiz-Castillo, J., The evaluation of citation distributions. SERIEs 3:1–2 (2012), 291–310.
18. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., Braun, T., Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance. Scientometrics 12:5–6 (1987), 267–291.
19. Seglen, P.O., The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 1992, 628.