Corrigendum to “Citation analysis of scientific categories” (Heliyon (2017) 3(5), (S2405844016322800) (10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00300));Citation analysis of scientific categories

Heliyon

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Patience, Gregory S ^a   Patience, Christian A ^b   Blais, Bruno ^a   Bertrand, Francois ^a  

^a ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Information Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019079078     PISSN: 24058440     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01243     Document Type: Erratum

References (44)

1. Abbott, A., Italy introduces performance-related funding: agency to evaluate research is launched. Nature, 460, 2009, 559.
2. 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. J. Informetr. 9:4 (2015), 746–761.
3. Adler, R., Ewing, J., Taylor, P., Citation statistics a report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Stat. Sci. 24:1 (2009), 1–14.
4. ARWU, Academic ranking of world universities. http://www.shanghairanking.com/aboutarwu.htm, 2016.
5. Birnholtz, J.P., What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57:13 (2006), 1758–1770.
6. Boffito, D.C., Patience, C.A., Patience, P.A., Bertrand, F., Patience, G.S., How do you write and present research well? 8—assign authorship according to intellectual involvement. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 94:6 (2016), 1127–1134.
7. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.D., What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J. Doc. 64:1 (2008), 45–80.
8. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., Ledin, A., Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS ONE, 3, 2008, e3480.
9. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69:1 (2006), 169–173.
10. Cagan, R.L., The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Dis. Models Mech. 6:4 (2013), 869–870.
11. Colliander, C., Ahlgren, P., 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. J. Informetr. 5 (2011), 101–113.
12. Crespo, J.A., Li, Y., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields. PLoS ONE, 8(3), 2010, e58727.
13. Cronin, B., Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practises?. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52:7 (2001), 558–569.
14. Dienes, K.R., Completing h. J. Informetr. 9:2 (2015), 385–397.
15. Ebadi, A., Schiffauerova, A., How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics 106:3 (2016), 1093–1116.
16. Finardi, U., Correlation between journal impact factor and citation performance: an experimental study. J. Informetr. 7:2 (2013), 357–370.
17. Garfield, E., Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1 (1979), 359–375.
18. Garfield, E., The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295:1 (2006), 90–93.
19. Gilbert, N., Good grades, but who gets the cash?. Nature, 457, 2009, 13.
20. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?. Scientometrics 61:3 (2004), 395–404.
21. Hirsch, J.E., An index to quantify and individual's scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102:46 (2005), 16569–16572.
22. Iglesias, J., Pecharromán, C., Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73:3 (2007), 303–320.
23. Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., Menczer, F., Universality of scholarly impact metrics. J. Informetr. 7 (2013), 924–932.
24. Kinney, A.L., National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104:46 (2007), 17943–17947.
25. Leydesdorff, L., Opthof, T., Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (2010), 2365–2369.
26. Li, Y., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. J. Informetr. 7 (2013), 746–755.
27. MacRoberts, M.H., MacRoberts, B.R., Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36 (1996), 435–444.
28. Moed, H.E., Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J. Informetr. 4 (2010), 265–277.
29. Moed, H.E., A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics 110 (2017), 967–990.
30. National Science Foundation, Accessed on 15 June 2015 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300.pdf, 2014.
31. Patience, G.S., Boffito, D.C., Patience, P.A., Communicate Science Papers, Presentations and Posters Effectively. 2015, Academic Press, Waltham, MA.
32. Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: the case of fractional citation counts. J. Informetr. 6 (2012), 121–130.
33. Redner, S., How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. Eur. Phys. J. B 4 (1998), 131–134.
34. Rørstad, K., Aksnes, D.W., Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position—a large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. J. Informetr. 9:2 (2015), 317–333.
35. Schubert, A., Braun, T., Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9:5 (1986), 281–291.
36. Tahamtan, I., Ashar, A.S., Ahamdzadeh, K., Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107:3 (2016), 1195–1225.
37. Verma, I.M., Impact, not impact factor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112:26 (2015), 7875–7876.
38. Vieira, E.S., Gomes, J.N.F., Citations to scientific articles: its distribution and dependence on article features. J. Informetr. 4:1 (2010), 1–13.
39. Vinkler, P., Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 58:3 (2003), 687–694.
40. Vinkler, P., Comparative rank assessment of journal articles. J. Informetr. 7:3 (2013), 712–717.
41. Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. J. Informetr. 7 (2013), 833–849.
42. Web of ScienceTM Core Collection, Accessed on 5 January 2015 http://apps.webofknowledge.com, 2015.
43. Yu, T., Yu, G., Features of scientific papers and the relationship with their citation impact. Malaysian J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 19:1 (2014), 37–50.
44. Zitt, M., Small, H., Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: the audience factor. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (2010), 2365–2369.