Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators

  • Scientometric Datafiles
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A model experiment is presented for thequantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators used in evaluating the scientific impact of papers. The Relative Subfield Citedness (Rw) indicator proved to be the most appropriate according to the criteria chosen. RW increases with the number of citations to the papers and, in contrast to other relative impact indicators, does not decrease if an author chooses to publish most of his papers in journals with large impact factors or if most of the citations to his papers are to the ones in journals with the largest impact factors.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Vinkler, An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. J. Moravcsik, Some contextual problems of science indicators, In:A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, 1988.

  3. A. Schubert, A. Braun, Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. P. Vinkler, Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications,Scientometrics, 10 (1986) 157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. P. Vinkler, Bibliometric features of some scientific subfields and the scientometric consequences therefrom,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Vinkler, Bibliometric analysis of publication activity of a scientific research institute, In:L. Egghe andR. Rousseau (Eds),Informetrics 89/90, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.

  7. Per O. Seglen, Evaluation of scientists by journal impact, In:P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager (Eds),Representations of Science and Technology, PSWO Press, Leiden University, 1992.

  8. M. L. Raisig, Mathematical evaluation of the scientific serial,Science, 131 (1960) 1417.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Garfield,Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Vinkler, Possible causes of differences in information impact of journals from different subfields,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. P. Vinkler, Model of manifested communication through publications,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Vinkler, Magic triangle for three relative impact indicators,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. P. Vinkler, Literature overlap measures for information pools of research teams, In:M. E. D. Koenig, A. Bookstein (Eds), Proceedings of the fifth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 1995.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Research Institute for Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pusztaszeri út 59/67, 1025, Budapest, Hungary

    P. Vinkler

Authors
  1. P. Vinkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vinkler, P. Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 36, 223–236 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017315

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017315

Keywords

Search

Navigation