On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines

Relative indicators are commonly used to remove biases due to different citation practices in various scientific fields. Here we extend our recent investigation on the viability of the use of relative indicators for comparing article impact in different disciplines. We consider citation distributions for papers published in 14 of the 172 disciplines categorized by the Journal Citation Reports. The distribution of the number of citations received by publications in a certain discipline divided by the average number for the discipline is a universal function. Based on it, we compute the relative number of citations needed to be among the q percent most-cited publications in a discipline. The effect of finite samples is also discussed. The average number of citations is shown to be strongly correlated with the impact factor, but fluctuations are quite large. A similar universal distribution is found (with exceptions) when citation distributions restricted to papers published in a single journal are considered.

[1]  Peter Vinkler.  Relations of relative scientometric indicators , 2004, Scientometrics.

[2]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[4]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators , 1996, Scientometrics.

[5]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact , 1986, Scientometrics.

[6]  H. N. Nagaraja,et al.  Order Statistics, Third Edition , 2005, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.

[7]  A. Kinney.  National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  D. King.  The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[9]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators , 1996, Scientometrics.

[10]  J. Hirsch.  Does the h index have predictive power? , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[12]  M. Sales-Pardo,et al.  Effectiveness of Journal Ranking Schemes as a Tool for Locating Information , 2008, PloS one.

[13]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Juan E. Iglesias,et al.  Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields , 2006, Scientometrics.