Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 825–843 | Cite as

How to standardize (if you must)

  • Marcello D’Agostino
  • Valentino Dardanoni
  • Roberto Ghiselli RicciEmail author
Article

Abstract

In many situations we are interested in appraising the value of a certain characteristic for a given individual relative to the context in which this value is observed. In recent years this problem has become prominent in the evaluation of scientific productivity and impact. A popular approach to such relative valuations consists in using percentile ranks. This is a purely ordinal method that may sometimes lead to counterintuitive appraisals, in that it discards all information about the distance between the raw values within a given context. By contrast, this information is partly preserved by using standardization, i.e., by transforming the absolute values in such a way that, within the same context, the distance between the relative values is monotonically related to the distance between the absolute ones. While there are many practically useful alternatives for standardizing a given characteristic across different contexts, the general problem seems to have never been addressed from a theoretical and normative viewpoint. The main aim of this paper is to fill this gap and provide a conceptual framework that allows for this kind of systematic investigation. We then use this framework to prove that, under some rather weak assumptions, the general format of a standardization function can be determined quite sharply.

Keywords

Standardization Normalization z-score m-score Location statistics Dispersion statistics Citation analysis 

References

  1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. (2012). How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations? Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88(2), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2013). Psychological Testing. Principles, Applications and Issues. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Kindlund, S. (2005) A method to standardize usability metrics into a single score. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 401–409). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Larose, D., & Larose, C. (2015). Data mining and predictive analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1370–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment. Newe York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Li, Y., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 746–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Milligan, G., & Cooper, M. (1988). A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification, 5, 181–204.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mlachil M, Tapsoba R, Tapsoba, S. (2014) A quality of growth index for developing countries: a proposal. IMF Working Paper (WP/14/172)Google Scholar
  12. Moed, H. (2010). Cwts crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 436438.Google Scholar
  13. OECD. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17268–17272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roberts, A., & Varberg, D. (1973). Convex Functions. New York and London: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Stoddard, A. (1979). Standardization of measures prior to cluster analysis. Biometrics, 35, 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tijssen, R., Visser, M., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2013). Measuring the user experience. Collecting, analysing, and presenting usability metrics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., & Van Raan, A. F. (2003). The holy grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Raan, A., Van Leeuwen, T., Visser, N., Van Eck, M. S., & Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to opthof and leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the absolute relative impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N., Van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & Van Raan, A. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang, Y., & Chen, H. J. (2012). Use or percentiles and z-scores in anthropometry. Handbook of anthropometry (pp. 29–48). New York: Springer. Physical Measures of Human Form in Health and Disease.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang, Z., Cheng, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2014). Comparison of the effect of mean-based method and z-score for field normalization of citations at the level of web of science subject categories. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1679–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MilanMilanoItaly
  2. 2.University of PalermoPalermoItaly
  3. 3.University of FerraraFerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations