Advertisement

On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines

Varia

Abstract

Relative indicators are commonly used to remove biases due to different citation practices in various scientific fields. Here we extend our recent investigation on the viability of the use of relative indicators for comparing article impact in different disciplines. We consider citation distributions for papers published in 14 of the 172 disciplines categorized by the Journal Citation Reports. The distribution of the number of citations received by publications in a certain discipline divided by the average number for the discipline is a universal function. Based on it, we compute the relative number of citations needed to be among the q percent most-cited publications in a discipline. The effect of finite samples is also discussed. The average number of citations is shown to be strongly correlated with the impact factor, but fluctuations are quite large. A similar universal distribution is found (with exceptions) when citation distributions restricted to papers published in a single journal are considered.

Keywords

citation analysis relative indicators impact factor universality 

Abbreviations

IF

impact factor

WoS

Web of Science

Equation

Eq

References

  1. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D (2008) What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc 64: 45-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. David HA, Nagaraja HN (2003) Order Statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69: 131-152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garfield E (1979) Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Applications in Science, TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 16569-16572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirsch JE (2007) Does the h index have predictive power?. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 19193-19198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Iglesias JE, Pecharroman C (2007) Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73: 303-320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kinney AL (2007) National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 17943-17947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C (2008) Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 17268-17272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Schubert A, Braun T (1986) Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative-assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9: 281-291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schubert A, Braun T (1996) Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36: 11-24Google Scholar
  13. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2008) Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS ONE 3:e1683Google Scholar
  14. Vinkler P (1996) Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 36: 223-236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vinkler P (2003) Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 58: 687-694CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© L. Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Wroclaw, Poland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SMC, INFM-CNR and Dipartimento di Fisica, “Sapienza” Universita’ di RomaRomaItaly
  2. 2.Complex Networks Lagrange Laboratory, Institute for Scientific Interchange FoundationTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations