Related papers: Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative…
Ageing of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is…
In order to assess Microsoft Academic as a useful data source for evaluative bibliometrics it is crucial to know, if citation counts from Microsoft Academic could be used in common normalization procedures and whether the normalized scores…
In this paper we present "citation success index", a metric for comparing the citation capacity of pairs of journals. Citation success index is the probability that a random paper in one journal has more citations than a random paper in…
Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research…
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…
Articles in high-impact journals are, on average, more frequently cited. But are they cited more often because those articles are somehow more "citable"? Or are they cited more often simply because they are published in a high-impact…
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…
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…
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…
In recent years bibliometricians have paid increasing attention to research evaluation methodological problems, among these being the choice of the most appropriate indicators for evaluating quality of scientific publications, and thus for…
Citation numbers are extensively used for assessing the quality of scientific research. The use of raw citation counts is generally misleading, especially when applied to cross-disciplinary comparisons, since the average number of citations…
Citations measure the importance of a publication, and may serve as a proxy for its popularity and quality of its contents. Here we study the distributions of citations to publications from individual academic institutions for a single…
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…
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)…
The large amount of information contained in bibliographic databases has recently boosted the use of citations, and other indicators based on citation numbers, as tools for the quantitative assessment of scientific research. Citations…
Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web-of-Science Subject Categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University…
In the case of the scientometric evaluation of multi- or interdisciplinary units one risks to compare apples with oranges: each paper has to assessed in comparison to an appropriate reference set. We suggest that the set of citing papers…
Summing or averaging nonlinearly field-normalized citation counts is a common but methodologically problematic practice, as it violates mathematical principles. The issue originates from the nonlinear transformation, which disrupts the…
It is well known in bibliometrics that the average number of citations per paper differs greatly between the various disciplines. The differing citation culture (in particular the different average number of references per paper and thereby…
Articles are cited for different purposes and differentiating between reasons when counting citations may therefore give finer-grained citation count information. Although identifying and aggregating the individual reasons for each citation…