The normalization of citation counts based on classification systems

If we want to assess whether the paper in question has had a particularly high or low citation impact compared to other papers, the standard practice in bibliometrics is to normalize citations in respect of the subject category and publication year. A number of proposals for an improved procedure in the normalization of citation impact have been put forward in recent years. Against the background of these proposals, this study describes an ideal solution for the normalization of citation impact: in a first step, the reference set for the publication in question is collated by means of a classification scheme, where every publication is associated with a single principal research field or subfield entry (e.g., via Chemical Abstracts sections) and a publication year. In a second step, percentiles of citation counts are calculated for this set and used to assign the normalized citation impact score to the publications (and also to the publication in question).

[1]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Mimicry in science? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[2]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure , 2005 .

[3]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[5]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  of Science , 2022 .

[6]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? , 2011 .

[7]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents by using an “Integrated Impact Indicator” (I3) , 2011 .

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

[9]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics , 2012 .

[10]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs , 2012, ArXiv.

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

[12]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Carolin Michels,et al.  Placing articles in the large publisher nations: Is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  OPEN PEN ACCESS CCESS , 2008 .

[19]  Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al.  A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts , 2009, Scientometrics.

[20]  Péter Vinkler,et al.  The case of scientometricians with the "absolute relative" impact indicator , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Robert R. Braam,et al.  Quality of indexing information: authors' views on indexing of their articles in Chemical Abstracts online CA-file , 1992, J. Inf. Sci..

[23]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators , 2013, J. Informetrics.