The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 625-640

  Albarrán, Pedro ^a   Herrero, Carmen ^a   Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^b   Villar, Antonio ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALICANTE   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Additive rules; Citation impact; Relative research performance; Tournaments; Worth

Indexed keywords

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ADDITIVE RULE; CITATION IMPACT; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; TOURNAMENTS; WORTH;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 85019601873     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators. Journal of Informetrics 10 (2016), 646–651.
2. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: technical results. Journal of Informetrics 5 (2011), 48–63.
3. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., Ruiz-Castillo, J., High- and low-impact citation measures: Empirical applications. Journal of Informetrics 5 (2011), 122–145.
4. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions. Research Evaluation 20 (2011), 325–339.
5. Albarrán, P., Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Differences in citation impact across countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 66 (2015), 512–525.
6. Altman, A., Tennenholtz, M., Ranking systems: the PageRank axioms. Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC-05), ACM Press New York, 2005, 1–8.
7. Bergstrom, C.T., Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News 68 (2007), 314–316.
8. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., How good is research really?. EMBO Reports 14 (2013), 226–230.
9. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics 98 (2014), 487–509.
10. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics 5 (2011), 228–230.
11. Bornmann, L., Williams, How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Journal of Informetrics 7 (2013), 562–574.
12. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Nehaus, C., Daniel, H.-D., Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (2008), 93–102.
13. Bornmann, L., De Moya Anegón, F., Leydesdorff, L., The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics 6:2 (2012), 333–335.
14. Bornmann, L., Bowman, B., Bauer, J., Marx, W., Schier, H., Palzenberg, M., Bibliometric standards for evaluating research institutes in the natural sciences. Cronin, B., Sugimoto, C., (eds.), 2014, MIT Press, Cambridge.
15. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2011), 1761–1769.
16. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices. Journal of Informetrics 8 (2014), 449–477.
17. Carayol, N., Lahatte, A., Dominance relations and ranking when quality and quality both matter: Applications to U.S. universities and econ. 2014, Departments worldwide. Cahiers du GRETha 2014-13, Groupe de Recherche en Economis Théorique et Appliqué.
18. Chabotarev, Shamis, Characterization of scoring methods for preference aggregation. Annals of Operations Research 80 (1998), 299–332.
19. Daniels, H., Round-robin tournaments scores. Biometrika 56 (1969), 295–299.
20. DeGroot, M.H., Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69:345 (1974), 118–121.
21. Echenique, F., Fryer, R.G., A measure of segregation based on social interactions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122:2 (2007), 441–485.
22. Fairclough, R., Thelwall, M., More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons. Journal of Informetrics 9:4 (2015), 895–906.
23. Foster, J.E., Greeer, J., Thorbecke, E., A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica 52 (1984), 761–766.
24. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Debackere, K., The application of citation-based performance classes to the disciplinary and multidisciplinary assessment in national comparison and institutional research assessment. Scientometrics 101:2 (2014), 939–952.
25. Golub, B., Jackson, M., Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journa: Microeconomics 2:1 (2000), 112–149.
26. Gordon, A.D., A measure of the agreement between rankings. Biometrika 66:1 (1979), 7–15.
27. Grannis, R., Segregation indices and their functional inputs. Sociological Methodology 32 (2002), 68–84.
28. Herranz, N., Ruiz-Castillo, J., Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: high- and low-impact indicators. Research Evaluation 21 (2012), 113–125 [2012].
29. Herranz, N., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The end of the ‘European paradox'. Scientometrics 95 (2013), 453–464.
30. Herrero, C., Villar, A., On the comparison of group performance with categorical data. PLoS ONE, 8(12), 2013, e84784.
31. Herrero, C., Villar, A., The Balanced Worth: A procedure to evaluate performance in terms of ordered attributes, mimeo. 2017.
32. Hirsh, J.E., An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (2005), 16569–16572.
33. Kóczy, L., Nichifor, A., The intellectual influence of economic journals: Quality versus quantity. Economic Theory 52 (2013), 863–884.
34. Keener, J.P., The Perron-Frobenius Theorem and the ranking of football teams. SIAM Review 35:1 (1993), 80–93.
35. Laband, D., Piette, M.J., The relative impacts of economic journals 1970–1990. Journal of Economic Literature 32:2 (1994), 640–666.
36. Laslier, J., Tournament solutions and majority voting. 1997, Springer-Verlag, New York.
37. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Integrated impact indicators (I3) compared with impact factors (Ifs): An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2011), 2133–2146.
38. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Opthof, T., Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2011), 1370–1381.
39. Leydesdorff, L., Alternatives to the journal impact factor: i3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?:) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics 92 (2012), 355–365.
40. Li, Y., Ruiz-Castillo, J., The impact of extreme observations in citation distributions. Research Evaluation 23 (2014), 174–182.
41. Liebowitz, S., Palmer, J., Assesing the relative impact of economic journals. Journal of Economic Literature 22 (1984), 77–88.
42. Marchant, T., Score-based bibliometric rankings of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (2009), 1132–1137.
43. Moon, J.W., Pullman, N., On generalized tournament matrices. SIAM Review 12 (1970), 384–399.
44. National Science Board, Science and engineering indicators 2012. 2012, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
45. Newman, M.E.J., The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45 (2003), 167–256.
46. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T., The pagerank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford DigitaI Library Technologies Project., 1998 http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422.
47. Palacios-Huerta, I., Volij, O., The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica 72 (2004), 963–977.
48. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Ruiz-Castillo, J., A comparison of two ways of evaluating research units working in different scientific fields. Scientometrics 106 (2016), 539–561.
49. Pinski, G., Narin, F., Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications-theory with application to literature of physics. Information Processing & Management 12:5 (1976), 297–312.
50. Rodriguez-Navarro, A., A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distributions to quantify research performance in countries and institutions. PLoS ONE, 6(5), 2011, e201510.
51. Rousseau, Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 63 (2012), 416–420.
52. Ruiz-Castillo, J., Waltman, L., Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics 9 (2015), 102–117.
53. Schreiber, M., Inconsistencies of recently proposed citation impact indicators and how to avoid them. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (2012), 2062–2073.
54. Schubert, A., Braun, T., Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publications output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9 (1986), 281–291.
55. Slutzki, G., Volij, O., Ranking participants in generalized tournaments. International Journal of Game Theory 33 (2005), 255–270.
56. Slutzki, G., Volij, O., Scoring of web pages and tournaments: axiomatizations. Social Choice and Welfare 26 (2006), 75–92.
57. Vinkler, P., Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10 (1986), 157–177.
58. Wagner, C., Leydesdorff, L., An integrated impact indicator (I3): A new definition of impact with policy relevance. Research Evaluation 21 (2012), 183–188.
59. Waltman, L., Schreiber, M., On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (2013), 372–379.
60. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J., Field normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics 9 (2015), 872–894.
61. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E.C.M., Tijssen, R.J.W., Van Eck, N.J., et al. The leiden ranking 2011/2012: data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (2012), 2419–2432.
62. Waltman, L., A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics 10 (2016), 365–391.
63. West, J.D., Bergstrom, C., Bergstrom, T., The eigenfactor metrics™: A network approach to assessing scholarly Journals: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News 71 (2010), 236–244.
64. Yanoletzky, G., A dissimilarity index ofmultidimensional inequality of opportunity. Journal of Economic Inequality 10:3 (2012), 343–373.