Reference standards for citation based assessments

One of the most crucial points of citation-based assessments is to find proper reference standards to which the otherwise meaningless plain citation counts can be compared. Using such standards, mere absolute numbers can be turned into relative indicators, suitable for cross-national and cross-field comparisons. In the present study, three possible choice of reference standards for citation assessments are discussed. Citation rates of publications under study can be compared to the average citation rates of the papers of the publishing journals to result inRelative Citation Rate (RCR), an indicator successfully used in several comparative scientometric analyses (see, e.g. Refs 1–5). A more “customized” reference set is defined by therelated records in the new CD Edition of theScience Citation Index database. Using the socalled “bibliographic coupling” technique, a set of papers with a high measure of similarity in their list of references is assigned to every single paper of the database. Beside of being an excellent retrieval tool, related records provide a suitable reference set to assess the relative standing of a given set of papers as measured by citation indicators. The third choice introduced in this study is specifically designed for assessing journals. For this purpose, the set of journals cited by the journal in question seems to be a useful basis to compare with. The pros and cons of the three choices are discussed and several examples are given.

[1]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact , 1988, J. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Journal citation measures: a concise review , 1988, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries 1981–1985 , 2005, Scientometrics.

[4]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry 1978–1980 , 1987, Scientometrics.

[5]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Citation indexing - its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities , 1979 .

[6]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics, engineering and mathematics 1981–1985 , 1988, Scientometrics.

[7]  A. Schubert,et al.  Scientometric Indicators: A 32-Century Comparative Evaluation of Publishing Performance and Citation Impact , 1985 .

[8]  M. M. Kessler.  Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[9]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics and mathematics 1978–1980 , 1987, Scientometrics.

[10]  Tibor Braun,et al.  AGAINST ABSOLUTE METHODS: RELATIVE SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS AND RELATIONAL CHARTS AS EVALUATION TOOLS , 1988 .

[11]  A. Cawkell.  Science Citation Index , 1970, Nature.

[12]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry 1981–1985 , 1988, Scientometrics.

[13]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance , 1987, Scientometrics.

[14]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981–1985 , 1989, Scientometrics.

[15]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 107 countries 1978–1980 , 2005, Scientometrics.