Related papers: Three practical field normalised alternative indic…
The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across…
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…
The article-level metrics (ALMs) or altmetrics becomes a new trendsetter in recent times for measuring the impact of scientific publications and their social outreach to intended audiences. The popular social networks such as Facebook,…
This study aims to improve the accuracy of long-term citation impact prediction by integrating early citation counts, Mendeley readership, and various non-scientific factors, such as journal impact factor, authorship and reference list…
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,…
In this study, we address the question whether (and to what extent, respectively) altmetrics are related to the scientific quality of papers (as measured by peer assessments). Only a few studies have previously investigated the relationship…
Two journal-level indicators, respectively the mean ($m^i$) and the standard deviation ($v^i$) are proposed to be the core indicators of each journal and we show that quite several other indicators can be calculated from those two core…
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…
More than 30 years after Cronin's seminal paper on "the need for a theory of citing" (Cronin, 1981), the metrics community is once again in need of a new theory, this time one for so-called "altmetrics". Altmetrics, short for alternative…
The study explores the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and how it is related to the availability of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) in Thomson Reuters' DCI (Data Citation Index). We investigate if cited research…
Citation metrics are analytic measures used to evaluate the usage, impact and dissemination of scientific research. Traditionally, citation metrics have been independently measured at each level of the publication pyramid, namely at the…
The article "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (`Leiden') evaluations of research performance", published by Tobias Opthof and Loet Leydesdorff (arXiv:1002.2769) deals with a subject as important as the…
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…
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…
Over the recent years, there has been a growing interest in developing new research evaluation methods that could go beyond the traditional citation-based metrics. This interest is motivated on one side by the wider availability or even…
Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method for handling…
We present an empirical comparison between two normalization mechanisms for citation-based indicators of research performance. These mechanisms aim to normalize citation counts for the field and the year in which a publication was…
In this paper, we show that citation counts work better than a random baseline (by a margin of 10%) in distinguishing excellent research, while Mendeley reader counts don't work better than the baseline. Specifically, we study the potential…
Citation and publication profiles are gaining importance for the evaluation of top researchers when it comes to the appropriation of funding for excellence programs or career promotion judgments. Indicators like the Normalized Mean Citation…
The rank of a journal based on simple citation information is a popular measure. The simplicity and availability of rankings such as Impact Factor, Eigenfactor and SciMago Journal Rank based on trusted commercial sources ensures their…