-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.12
0.11827415 = product of:
0.2365483 = sum of:
0.19331077 = weight(_text_:fields in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19331077 = score(doc=4186,freq=10.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.61166 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04323754 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014)
0.04
0.042791158 = product of:
0.17116463 = sum of:
0.17116463 = weight(_text_:fields in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17116463 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.5415868 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013)
0.04
0.03743447 = product of:
0.14973788 = sum of:
0.14973788 = weight(_text_:fields in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14973788 = score(doc=532,freq=6.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.4737898 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.025942523 = product of:
0.10377009 = sum of:
0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10377009 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.03
0.02593536 = product of:
0.10374144 = sum of:
0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10374144 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
-
Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013)
0.03
0.02593536 = product of:
0.10374144 = sum of:
0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10374144 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Using data compiled for the SCImago Institutions Ranking, we look at whether the subject area type an institution (university or research-focused institution) belongs to (in terms of the fields researched) has an influence on its ranking position. We used latent class analysis to categorize institutions based on their publications in certain subject areas. Even though this categorization does not relate directly to scientific performance, our results show that it exercises an important influence on the outcome of a performance measurement: Certain subject area types of institutions have an advantage in the ranking positions when compared with others. This advantage manifests itself not only when performance is measured with an indicator that is not field-normalized but also for indicators that are field-normalized.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016)
0.03
0.02593536 = product of:
0.10374144 = sum of:
0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10374144 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.02
0.0216128 = product of:
0.0864512 = sum of:
0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0864512 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.02
0.017295016 = product of:
0.069180064 = sum of:
0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069180064 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013)
0.01
0.0129712615 = product of:
0.051885046 = sum of:
0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051885046 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.0129712615 = product of:
0.051885046 = sum of:
0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051885046 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06382575 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
