Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An approach to the author citation potential: measures of scientific performance which are invariant across scientific fields

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In the past, the citation potential was studied at journal level considering the average number of references in established groups of journals (for example, the crown indicator is based on the journal subject categories in the Web of Science database). In this paper, some characterizations of the author’s scientific research through three different research dimensions are proposed: production (journal papers), impact (journal citations), and reference (bibliographical sources). Then, we propose different measures of the citation potential for authors based on a proportion of these dimensions. An empirical application, in a set of 120 randomly selected highly productive authors from the CSIC Research Centre (Spain) in four subject areas, shows that the ratio between production and impact dimensions is a normalized measure of the citation potential at the level of individual authors. Moreover, this ratio reduces the between-group variance in relation to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of the indicators analysed. Furthermore, it is consistent with the type of journal impact indicator used. A possible application of this result is in the selection and promotion process within interdisciplinary institutions, since it allows comparisons of authors based on their particular scientific research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2011). Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index. Scientometrics, 88(3), 729–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2013a). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2013b). Hábitos de publicación y citación según campos científicos: Principales diferencias a partir de las revistas JCR. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 36(4), en012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2013c). Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 593–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M. I., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Suárez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2013). Theoretical justification of the central area indices and the central interval indices. Scientometrics, 95(1), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Pérez, M. A. (2013). Limited validity of equations to predict the future h index. Scientometrics, 96(3), 901–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Schubert, A., & Debackere, K. (2009). Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics, 78(1), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal–journal citation relations using the journal citation reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10 % (or top-25 %?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazloumian, A. (2012). Predicting scholars’ scientific impact. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, O., Pan, R. K., Petersen, A. M., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2013a). On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific Reports, 3, 3052. doi:10.1038/srep03052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, O., Petersen, A. M., Pan, R. K., & Fortunato, S. (2013b). The case for caution in predicting scientists’ future impact. Physics Today, 66, 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(9), 1823–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(4), 1118–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 431–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2013). Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96(3), 699–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1856–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TiDES Research Institute, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Campus de Tafira, 35017, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

    Pablo Dorta-González & Rafael Suárez-Vega

  2. Departamento de Ingeniería Informática, Universidad de La Laguna, Avenida Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez s/n, 38271, La Laguna, Spain

    María Isabel Dorta-González

Authors
  1. Pablo Dorta-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Isabel Dorta-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Suárez-Vega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Dorta-González.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M.I. & Suárez-Vega, R. An approach to the author citation potential: measures of scientific performance which are invariant across scientific fields. Scientometrics 102, 1467–1496 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1459-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1459-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation