Related papers: More Precise Methods for National Research Citatio…
When comparing the citation impact of nations, departments or other groups of researchers within individual fields, three approaches have been proposed: arithmetic means, geometric means, and percentage in the top X%. This article compares…
The importance of collaboration in research is widely accepted, as is the fact that articles with more authors tend to be more cited. Nevertheless, although previous studies have investigated whether the apparent advantage of collaboration…
Over the past decade, national research evaluation exercises, traditionally conducted using the peer review method, have begun opening to bibliometric indicators. The citations received by a publication are assumed as proxy for its quality,…
Citation networks have fed numerous works in scientific evaluation, science mapping (and more recently large-scale network studies) for decades. The variety of citation behavior across scientific fields is both a research topic in sociology…
Citation distributions for 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001, which were published in the 2004 report of the National Science Foundation, USA, are analyzed. It is shown that the ratio of the total number of citations of any two broad…
Measuring the impact of a publication in a fair way is a significant challenge in bibliometrics, as it must not introduce biases between fields and should enable comparison of the impact of publications from different years. In this paper,…
In our chapter we address the statistical analysis of percentiles: How should the citation impact of institutions be compared? In educational and psychological testing, percentiles are already used widely as a standard to evaluate an…
With the passage of more time from the original date of publication, the measure of the impact of scientific works using subsequent citation counts becomes more accurate. However the measurement of individual and organizational research…
If we want to assess whether the paper in question has had a particularly high or low citation impact compared to other papers, the standard practice in bibliometrics is to normalize citations in respect of the subject category and…
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,…
Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact.…
When comparing the average citation impact of research groups, universities and countries, field normalisation reduces the influence of discipline and time. Confidence intervals for these indicators can help with attempts to infer whether…
Purpose: Analyze the diversity of citation distributions to publications in different research topics to investigate the accuracy of size-independent, rank-based indicators. Top percentile-based indicators are the most common indicators of…
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories…
The two most used citation impact indicators in the assessment of scientific journals are, nowadays, the impact factor and the h-index. However, both indicators are not field normalized (vary heavily depending on the scientific category)…
Normalised citation counts are routinely used to assess the average impact of research groups or nations. There is controversy over whether confidence intervals for them are theoretically valid or practically useful. In response, this…
Percentiles are statistics pointing to the standing of a paper's citation impact relative to other papers in a given citation distribution. Percentile Ranks (PRs) often play an important role in evaluating the impact of scholars,…
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…
Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institutions with each other across time scales and disciplines. Both factors - discipline and period - have an influence on the citation count which…
Citation metrics are becoming pervasive in the quantitative evaluation of scholars, journals and institutions. More then ever before, hiring, promotion, and funding decisions rely on a variety of impact metrics that cannot disentangle…