相关论文: The misuse of the nonlinear field normalization me…
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…
The issue of whether nonlinear normalized citation counts can be added is critically important in scientometrics because it touches upon the theoretical foundation of underlying computation in the field. In this paper, we provide rigorous…
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…
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.…
We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical analysis,…
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…
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…
Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard. Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice of field-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citation scores. Using…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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,…
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…
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…
Clustering of publication networks is an efficient way to obtain classifications of large collections of research publications. Such classifications can be used to, e.g., detect research topics, normalize citation relations, or explore the…
The Center for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University advocates the use of specific normalizations for assessing research performance with reference to a world average. The Journal Citation Score (JCS) and Field Citation Score…
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…
The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact…
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…