Lifting the crown - citation z-score

Researchers worldwide are increasingly being assessed by the citation rates of their papers. These rates have potential impact on academic promotions and funding decisions. Currently there are several different ways that citation rates are being calculated, with the state of the art indicator being the crown indicator. This indicator has flaws and improvements could be considered. An item oriented field normalized citation score average (c¯f) is an incremental improvement as it differs from the crown indicator in so much as normalization takes place on the level of individual publication (or item) rather than on aggregated levels, and therefore assigns equal weight to each publication. The normalization on item level also makes it possible to calculate the second suggested indicator: total field normalized citation score (Σcf). A more radical improvement (or complement) is suggested in the item oriented field normalized logarithm-based citation z-score average (c¯fz[ln] or citation z-score). This indicator assigns equal weight to each included publication and takes the citation rate variability of different fields into account as well as the skewed distribution of citations over publications.

[1]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications , 1986, Scientometrics.

[2]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes , 2004, Scientometrics.

[3]  J. Sterne,et al.  Essential Medical Statistics , 2003 .

[4]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? , 2002, Scientometrics.

[5]  Assessing oncological productivity. is one method sufficient? , 2002, European journal of cancer.

[6]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  Is it better or just the same? Article identification strategies impact bibliometric assessments , 2006, Scientometrics.

[7]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications , 1995, Scientometrics.

[8]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  The skewness of science , 1992 .

[9]  Grant Lewison,et al.  The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs , 1996 .

[10]  Duncan Lindsey,et al.  The Corrected Quality Ratio: A Composite Index of Scientific Contribution to Knowledge , 1978 .

[11]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology , 2005, Scientometrics.

[12]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.