相关论文: Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of R…

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.…

Governments sometimes need to analyse sets of research papers within a field in order to monitor progress, assess the effect of recent policy changes, or identify areas of excellence. They may compare the average citation impacts of the…

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…

We study the statistics of citations made to the top ranked indexed journals for Science and Social Science databases in the Journal Citation Reports using different measures. Total annual citation and impact factor, as well as a third…

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…

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…

The data preprocessing stage is crucial in clustering. Features may describe entities using different scales. To rectify this, one usually applies feature normalisation aiming at rescaling features so that none of them overpowers the others…

Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano [arXiv:0806.0974, PNAS 105(45), 17268] claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale validation study of this…

The Impact Factor (IF), despite its widespread use, suffers from well-known biases that remain incompletely addressed in practice -- most notably its sensitivity to journal size and its lack of field normalization. Because of size…

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,…

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…

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…

One is inclined to conceptualize impact in terms of citations per publication, and thus as an average. However, citation distributions are skewed, and the average has the disadvantage that the number of publications is used in the…

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…

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…

Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in…

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…

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…

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves should therefore be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and JASIST differ by…

Fractional scoring has been proposed to avoid inconsistencies in the attribution of publications to percentile rank classes. Uncertainties and ambiguities in the evaluation of percentile ranks can be demonstrated most easily with small…