Related papers: A systematic empirical comparison of different app…
In this paper, a new field-normalized indicator is introduced, which is rooted in early insights in bibliometrics, and is compared with several established field-normalized indicators (e.g. the mean normalized citation score, MNCS, and…
The ISI-Impact Factors suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among…
A number of journal classification systems have been developed in bibliometrics since the launch of the Citation Indices by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1960s. These systems are used to normalize citation counts with…
When scientometric indicators are used to compare research units active in different scientific fields, there often is a need to make corrections for differences between fields, for instance differences in publication, collaboration, and…
We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks,…
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a specific counting…
Field normalization plays a crucial role in scientometrics to ensure fair comparisons across different disciplines. In this paper, we revisit the effectiveness of several widely used field normalization methods. Our findings indicate that…
Field normalized citation rates are well-established indicators for research performance from the broadest aggregation levels such as countries, down to institutes and research teams. When applied to still more specialized publication sets…
Journal Impact Factors (IFs) can be considered historically as the first attempt to normalize citation distributions by using averages over two years. However, it has been recognized that citation distributions vary among fields of science…
Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same…
Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in…
A framework is proposed for comparing different types of bibliometric indicators, introducing the notion of an Indicator Comparison Report. It provides a comprehensive overview of the main differences and similarities of indicators. The…
The purpose of this study is to compare the changing behavior of two counting methods (whole counting and whole-normalized counting) and inflation rate at country level research productivity and impact. For this, publication data on…
Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (i) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (ii) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a…
Field-normalization of citations is bibliometric standard. Despite the observed differences in citation counts between fields, the question remains how strong fields influence citation rates beyond the effect of attributes or factors…
There is a very important problem that has not attracted sufficient attention in academia, i.e., nonlinear field normalization citation counts at the paper level obtained using nonlinear field normalization methods cannot be added or…
Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics to normalize observed citation counts. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set,…
Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multi-disciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore,…
The crown indicator is a well-known bibliometric indicator of research performance developed by our institute. The indicator aims to normalize citation counts for differences among fields. We critically examine the theoretical basis of the…
According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalising the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type and the…