Abstract
Comparative assessment of scientometric indicators is greatly hindered by the different standards valid in different science fields and subfields. Indicators concerning to different fields can be compared only after first gauging them against a properly chosen reference standard, and their relative standing can then be compared. Methods of selecting reference standards and scaling procedures are surveyed in this study, and examples are given to their practical application.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Theocritus,Idylls
W. Shakespeare,Much Ado about Nothing, iii, 5, 18
A. Schubert, T. Braun, Reference standards for citation based assessments,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 21.
E. Garfield,Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology, and Humanities, Wiley, New York, 1979.
G. Pinski,Subject Classification and Influence Weight of 2300 Journals, Computer Horizons, Inc., Cherry Hill, 1975.
T. Braun, M. Brocken, W. Glänzel, E. Rinia, A. Schubert, “Hyphenation” of databases in building scientometric indicators. Physics Briefs-SCI based indicators of 13 European countries, 1980–1989,Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 131.
J. D. Frame, Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean,Interciencia, 2 (1977) 143.
A. Schubert, T. Braun, Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 281.
M. M. Kessler, Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers,American Documentation, 14 (1963) 10.
R. Todorov, W. Glänzel, Journal citation measures: A concise review,Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 47.
E. Garfield (Ed.),Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports. A Bibliometric Analysis of Science Journals in the ISI Database, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA, USA, from 1975 annually. From 1995 also available on CD-ROM.
D. J. de Solla Price,Little Science — Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York, 4th ed., 1971.
W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Price distribution. An exact formulation of Price's “Square Root Law”,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 211.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Subject field characteristic scores and scales for assessing research performance,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 267–292.
W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact,Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 123–127.
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, A dynamic look at a class of skew distributions. A model with scientometric applications,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 149.
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, Prompt nuclear analysis literature. A cumulative advantage approach,Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, A, 82 (1984) 215.
A. Schubert, A. Telcs, Estimation of the publication potential in 50 US states and in the District of Columbia based on the frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 40 (1989) 291.
A. Telcs, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Characterization and statistical test using truncated expectations for a class of skew distributions,Mathematical Social Sciences, 10 (1985) 169.
A. Schubert, T. Braun, W. Glänzel, Scientometric datafiles,Scientometrics, 16 (1989) 3.
T. Braun, A. Schubert, Indicators of research output in the sciences from 5 Central European countries, 1990–1994. In:Basic Sciences for Development: Subregional Opportunities and Challenges (Central Europe) UNESCO meeting held at Keszthely (Hungary), January 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schubert, A., Braun, T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36, 311–324 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129597
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129597