Abstract
The significant gap in citation impact performance between Japan and other nations with advanced scientific research systems invites investigation. The honoree of this festschrift has explored national science indicators and has warned against oversimple readings of citation rates as measures of merit alone. Many factors contribute to citation impact. This chapter examines the publication and citation record for Japan according to language of publication, average number of authors, international collaboration, researcher mobility, self-citation, and national research focus and diversity. These factors influencing citations (FICs) appear by themselves inadequate to explain Japan’s underperformance in citation impact. An additional FIC for Japan is substantial publication in venues that have a more national than international orientation, and it is proposed here that this significantly dampens the citation opportunity of many Japanese papers. A structural deficit in citation impact, moreover, is likely amplified over time through cumulative disadvantage. A science policymaker or journalist may easily misconstrue the meaning of a national citation rate relative to other countries and, as in Japan’s case, conclude that the nation’s research is qualitatively below world average. In fact, national science indicators for Japan have been interpreted in these terms by the Japanese government and the press. Citation indicators of national research performance require, as Henk Moed has repeatedly demonstrated, careful interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2007). Measuring science: Irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences. Current Science, 93, 762–766.
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.003.
Adams, J. (1998). Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396, 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1038/25219.
Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a.
Adams, J., & Gurney, K. A. (2018). Bilateral and multilateral coauthorship and citation impact: Patterns in UK and US international collaboration. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 3, article number 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00012.
Adams, J., Gurney, K. A., & Marshall, S. (2007). Profiling citation impact: A new methodology. Scientometrics, 72, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1696-x.
Adams, J., King, C., Miyairi, N., & Pendlebury, D. (2010). Global research report: Japan. Philadelphia, PA: Thomson Reuters.
Adams, J., McVeigh, M., Pendlebury, D., & Szomszor, M. (2019a). Profiles, not metrics. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics.
Adams, J., Rogers, G., & Szomszor, M. (2019b). The annual G20 scorecard—Research performance 2019. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics.
Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., Potter, R., & Szomszor, M. (2019c). Global research report: Multi-authorship and research analytics. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics.
Adams, J., Rogers, G., Smart, W., & Szomszor, M. (2020). Longitudinal variation in national research publication portfolios: Steps required to index balance and evenness. Quantitative Science Studies (forthcoming).
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation. 12 159–170. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776645.
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, 59, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018529.58334.eb.
Aksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002.
Armitage, C. (2019). Unfinished business. Nature, 567, S7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00829-z.
Baccini, A., De Nicolao, G., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS ONE 14, article number e0221212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221212.
Bakare, V., & Lewison, G. (2017). Country over-citation ratios. Scientometrics, 113, 1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2490-z.
Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew Effect for countries. Scientometrics, 40, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459289.
Bornmann, L. (2017). Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 1036–1047. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23728.
Bornmann, L. (2019). Does the normalized citation impact of universities profit from certain properties of their published documents—such as the number of authors and the impact factor of publishing journals? A multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Informetrics, 13, 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.007.
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Macro-indicators of citation impacts of six prolific countries: InCites data and the statistical significance of trends. PLoS ONE 8, article number e56768 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056768.
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors over time. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.03.001.
Bornmann, L., Haunschild R., & Mutz, R. (2019). Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching. (forthcoming). Preprint available on https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11706
Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.004.
Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., Leydesdorff, L. (2018a). The geography of references in elite articles: Which countries contribute to the archives of knowledge? PLoS ONE 13, article number e0194805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194805
Bornmann, L., Adams, J., Leydesdorff, L. (2018b). The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Journal of Informetrics 12, 931–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.009.
Coleman, S. (1999). Japanese science: From the inside. Abingdon, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN-13: 978-0415201698.
Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013a). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006.
Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013b). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22806.
Elsevier. (2016). International comparative performance of the UK research base 2016. https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence?a=507321.
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing—Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York, NY: Wiley. ISBN-13: 978-0471025597.
Garfield, E. (1987). Is Japanese science a juggernaut? Current Contents, 46, November 16, 3–9. Reprinted in: Eugene Garfield, Peer Review, Refereeing, Fraud, and Other Essays [Essays of an Information Scientist: 1987]. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press, 342–348. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p342y1987.pdf
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010512628145.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010561321723.
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (2002). A relational charting approach to the world of basic research in twelve science fields at the end of the second millennium. Scientometrics, 55, 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020406627944.
Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy. In: H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 75–94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN-13: 978-1402027024.
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Olmeda-Gomez, C., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22754.
Haiqi, Z., & Yamazaki, S. (1998). Citation indicators of Japanese journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4%3c375:AID-ASI7%3e3.0.CO;2-X.
Halevi, G., Moed, H. F., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2016). Researchers’ mobility, productivity and impact: Case of top producing authors in seven disciplines. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9437-0.
Hayashi, T., & Tomizawa, H. (2006). Restructuring the Japanese national research system and its effect on performance. Scientometrics, 68, 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0163-4.
Horta, H. (2013). Deepening our understanding of academic inbreeding effects on research information exchange and scientific output: New insights for academic based research. Higher Education, 65, 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9559-7.
Horta, H., Sato, M., & Yonezawa, A. (2011). Academic inbreeding: Exploring its characteristics and rationale in Japanese universities using a qualitative perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9126-9.
Huang, M. H., Lin, C. S., & Chen, D.-Z. (2011). Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2427–2436. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21625.
Jaffe, K. (2011). Do countries with lower self-citation rates produce higher impact papers? Or, does humility pay? Interciencia, 36, 694–698.
Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459299.
Khelfaoui, M., Larrègue, J., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2020). Measuring national self-referencing patterns of major science producers. Scientometrics, (forthcoming).
King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/430311a.
Ladle, R. J., Todd, P. A., & Malhado, A. C. M. (2012). Assessing insularity in global science. Scientometrics, 93, 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0703-z.
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266.
Larivière, V., Gong, K., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Citations strength begins at home. Nature, 564, S70–S71. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07695-1.
Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., & von Ins, M. (2008). Scientific output and impact: Relative positions of China, Europe, India, Japan, and the USA. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2008.10700848.
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010.
López-Illescas, C., de Moya Anegón, & Moed, H. F. (2009). Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poor cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science 35, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150809860.
López-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2011). A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization. Scientometrics, 88, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0398-6.
May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5301.793.
McNeill, D. (2019). Reaching out: Japan seeks to boost its scientific research performance by transforming its insular universities to better accommodate international collaboration. Nature, 567, S9–S11. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00830-6.
Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., & McBratney, A. (2010). Individual, country, and journal self-citation in soil science. Geoderma, 155, 434–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.12.003.
Moed, H. F. (2002). Measuring China’s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 53, 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014812810602.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. ISBN-13: 978-1402037139.
Moed, H. F. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. ISBN-13: 978-3319605210.
Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2014). A bibliometric approach to tracking international scientific migration. Scientometrics, 101, 1987–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1307-6.
Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1988–2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23314.
Moed, H. F., de Moya-Anegón, F., López-Illescas, C., & Visser, M. (2011). Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance? Journal of Informetrics, 5, 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.06.003.
Moed, H. F., Aisati, M., & Plume, A. (2013). Studying scientific migration in Scopus. Scientometrics, 94, 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0783-9.
Moed, H. F., de Moya Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., & López-Illescas, C. (2020). Are nationally oriented journals indexed in Scopus becoming more international? The effect of publication language and access modality. Journal of Informetrics (forthcoming).. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101011.
Morichika, N., & Shibayama, S. (2015). Impact on scientific productivity: A case study of a Japanese university department. Research Evaluation, 24, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv002.
Narin, F., & Frame, J. D. (1988). The growth of Japanese science and technology. Science, 245, 600–605. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4918.600.
Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093973.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (2000). The development of science indicators in the United States. In: B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.). The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 337–360). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. ISBN-13: 978-1573870993.
Negishi, M., Sun, Y., & Shigi, K. (2004). Citation database for Japanese papers: A new bibliometric tool for Japanese academic society. Scientometrics, 60, 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034378.38698.b2.
Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 739–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23209.
Pianta, M., & Archibugi, D. (1991). Specialization and size of scientific activities: A bibliometric analysis of advanced countries. Scientometrics, 22, 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019767.
Potter, R. (2020). Personal communication.
Puuska, H.-M., Muhonen, R., & Leino, Y. (2014). International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics, 98, 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1181-7.
Robinson-Garcia, N., Sugimoto, C. R., Murray, D., Yegros-Yegros, A., Larivière, & Costas, R. (2019). The many faces of mobility: Using bibliometric data to measure the movement of scientists. Journal of Informetrics 13, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.11.002
Saegusa, A. (1999). Survey finds deep insularity among Japanese scientists. Nature, 401, 314. https://doi.org/10.1038/43740.
Sawa, T. (2019). The global decline of Japanese universities. Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/01/18/commentary/japan-commentary/global-decline-japanese-universities/#.Xkc5NGhKjIU
Shehatta, I., & Al-Rubaish, A. M. (2019). Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries. Scientometrics, 120, 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03139-3.
Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2015). Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan. Research Policy, 44, 936–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.012.
Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M., & Allesina, S. (2014). The scientific impact of nations: Journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE 9, article number e109195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109195
Stahlschmidt, S., & Hinze, S. (2018). The dynamically changing publication universe as a reference point in national impact evaluation: A counterfactual case study on the Chinese publication growth. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, article number 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00030
Suda, M. (2019). China rises to world no. 2 in science research while Japan declines: Survey. The Mainichi. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190506/p2a/00m/0na/002000c
Sugimoto, C. R., Robinson-Garcia, N., Murray, D. S., Yegros-Yegros, A., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Scientists have most impact when they’re free to move. Nature, 550, 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/550029a.
Sun, Y., Kakinuma, S., Negishi, M., & Nisizawa, M. (2008). Internationalizing academic research activities in Japan. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315574102.
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.002.
Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2.
Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2015). Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation increases? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23302.
Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2020). Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, (forthcoming). Preprint available on https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00789
Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalized citation indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.007.
Traag, V. A. (2019). Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations. (forthcoming). Preprint available on https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/1912.08648.pdf
van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems. Research Evaluation, 9, 155–156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154400781777359.
van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language bias in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010549719484.
van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380.
van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2011). Severe language effect in university rankings: Particularly Germany and France are wronged in citation-based rankings. Scientometrics, 88, 495–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0382-1.
Wagner, C. S., & Jonkers, K. (2017). Open countries have strong science. Nature 550, 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/550032a.
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T., Baas, J., & Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, article number 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00010
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013a). Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96, 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4.
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013b). A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 833–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.002.
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 872–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001.
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2019). Field normalization of scientometric indicators. In: W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.). Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 281–300). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN-13: 978-3030025106.
Zhou, P., & Pan, Y. (2015). A comparative analysis of publication portfolios of selected economies. Scientometrics, 105, 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1707-2.
Zitt, M. (2015). The excesses of research evaluation: The proper use of bibliometrics. Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, 66, 2171–2176. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23519.
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1998). Internationalization of scientific journals: How international are the international journals? Scientometrics, 41, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457982.
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1999). Internationalization of communication: A view on the evolution of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 46, 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459619.
Zitt, M., Perrot, F., & Barré, R. (1998). The transition from ‘national’ to ‘transnational’ model and related measures of countries’ performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:1%3c30:AID-ASI5%3e3.0.CO;2-3.
Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56, 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021923329277.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Jonathan Adams and Martin Szomszor for discussions and Ross Potter for discussions and provision of data used here. All are members of the Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics, London, UK. In addition, I thank Satoko Ando and Fumitaka Yanagisawa, both of Clarivate Analytics, Tokyo, Japan, for information and discussions. The ideas presented are the responsibility of the author alone.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pendlebury, D.A. (2020). When the Data Don’t Mean What They Say: Japan’s Comparative Underperformance in Citation Impact. In: Daraio, C., Glänzel, W. (eds) Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47664-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47665-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)