## 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

- 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 - 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 - Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2013).
*Psychological Testing. Principles, Applications and Issues*. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar - 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 - Larose, D., & Larose, C. (2015).
*Data mining and predictive analysis*. Hoboken: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 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 - Lezak, M. (1995).
*Neuropsychological Assessment*. Newe York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - 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 - Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score.
*Journal of Informetrics*,*1*(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Milligan, G., & Cooper, M. (1988). A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis.
*Journal of Classification*,*5*, 181–204.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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
- Moed, H. (2010). Cwts crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre.
*Journal of Informetrics*,*4*, 436438.Google Scholar - OECD. (2005).
*Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide*. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar - 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 - Roberts, A., & Varberg, D. (1973).
*Convex Functions*. New York and London: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Stoddard, A. (1979). Standardization of measures prior to cluster analysis.
*Biometrics*,*35*, 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2013).
*Measuring the user experience. Collecting, analysing, and presenting usability metrics*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the absolute relative impact indicator.
*Journal of Informetrics*,*6*, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators.
*Journal of Informetrics*,*10*, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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