Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 21–35 | Cite as

Reference standards for citation based assessments

  • A. Schubert
  • T. Braun
Invited Papers

Abstract

One of the most crucial points of citation-based assessments is to find proper reference standards to which the otherwise meaningless plain citation counts can be compared. Using such standards, mere absolute numbers can be turned into relative indicators, suitable for cross-national and cross-field comparisons. In the present study, three possible choice of reference standards for citation assessments are discussed. Citation rates of publications under study can be compared to the average citation rates of the papers of the publishing journals to result inRelative Citation Rate (RCR), an indicator successfully used in several comparative scientometric analyses (see, e.g. Refs 1–5). A more “customized” reference set is defined by therelated records in the new CD Edition of theScience Citation Index database. Using the socalled “bibliographic coupling” technique, a set of papers with a high measure of similarity in their list of references is assigned to every single paper of the database. Beside of being an excellent retrieval tool, related records provide a suitable reference set to assess the relative standing of a given set of papers as measured by citation indicators. The third choice introduced in this study is specifically designed for assessing journals. For this purpose, the set of journals cited by the journal in question seems to be a useful basis to compare with. The pros and cons of the three choices are discussed and several examples are given.

Keywords

Citation Index Citation Count Citation Rate Publishing Journal Average Citation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert,Scientometric Indicators. A 32-Country Comparative Evaluation of Publishing Performance and Citation Impact, World Scientific Publ. Co., Singapore-Philadelphia, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 107 countries, 1978–1980,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2a.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry, 1978–1980,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2b.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics and mathematics, 1978–1980,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 3–16.Google Scholar
  5. 2c.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 2d.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 2e.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics, engineering, and mathematics, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 3.
    A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Against absolute methods: Relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools, In:A.F.J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 137–176.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, An alternative approach to the assessment of national performance in basic research, In:D. Evered, S. Harnett (Eds),The Evaluation of Scientific Research, Wiley, Chichester, 1989, pp. 32–45.Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 16 (1989) 3–478.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    F. Narin,Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity, Computer Horizons, Inc., Cherry Hill, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    E. Garfield,Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    M.M. Kessler, Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers,American Documentation, 14 (1963) 10–25.Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    R. Todorov, W. Glänzel, Journal citation measures: A concise review,Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 47–56.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Subject field characteristic scores and scales for assessing research performance,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 267–292.Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact,Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 123–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Schubert
    • 1
  • T. Braun
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Science and Scientometrics Research Unit (ISSRU)Library of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapest(Hungary)

Personalised recommendations