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).
References
[1]
Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J. A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4941 (accessed on 6 February 2013).
[2]
Aksnes, D.W. Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 169–185, doi:10.1002/asi.20262.
[3]
Schubert, A.; Braun, T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9, 281–291, doi:10.1007/BF02017249.
[4]
Schubert, A.; Braun, T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 1996, 36, 311–324, doi:10.1007/BF02129597.
[5]
Bornmann, L. Mimicry in science? Scientometrics 2010, 86, 173–177, doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0222-8.
[6]
Vinkler, P. The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator. J. Informetr. 2012, 6, 254–264, doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.004.
[7]
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.; Daniel, H.-D. 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? J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 2011, 174, 857–879, doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00689.x.
[8]
Van Raan, A.F.J. Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance, interdisciplinarity, structure. Measurement 2005, 3, 1–19.
[9]
Council of Canadian Academies. Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment: The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding; Council of Canadian Academies: Ottawa, Canada, 2012.
[10]
Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of chemical abstracts. Scientometrics 2009, 78, 219–229, doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2007-2.
[11]
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D. Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2008, 8, 93–102, doi:10.3354/esep00084.
[12]
Van Leeuwen, T.N.; Calero Medina, C. Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics. Res. Evaluat. 2012, 21, 61–70, doi:10.1093/reseval/rvr006.
[13]
Chemical Abstracts Service. Subject Coverage and Arrangement of Abstracts by Sections in Chemical Abstracts; Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS): Columbus, OH, USA, 1997.
[14]
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D. 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. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 61–71, doi:10.1002/asi.21418.
[15]
Braam, R.R.; Bruil, J. Quality of indexing information: Authors views on indexing of their articles in chemical abstracts online ca-file. J. Inf. Sci. 1992, 18, 399–408, doi:10.1177/016555159201800508.
[16]
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D. 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. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 1841–1852, doi:10.1002/asi.20901.
[17]
Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; van Eck, N.J.; van Leeuwen, T.N.; van Raan, A.F.J.; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2012, 63, 2419–2432, doi:10.1002/asi.22708.
[18]
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T. Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1370–1381, doi:10.1002/asi.21534.
[19]
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.; Mutz, R. The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. J. Informetr. 2013, 7, 158–165, doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.10.001.
[20]
Rousseau, R. Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2012, 63, 416–420, doi:10.1002/asi.21684.
[21]
Schreiber, M. Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 640–643, doi:10.1002/asi.22752.
[22]
Waltman, L.; Schreiber, M. On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 372–379, doi:10.1002/asi.22775.
[23]
Schubert, T.; Michels, C. Placing articles in the large publisher nations: Is there a “free lunch” in terms of higher impact? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 63, 596–611, doi:10.1002/asi.22759.
[24]
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; de Nooy, W. Field-normalized impact factors: A comparison of rescaling versus fractionally counted IFs. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013. in press.
[25]
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. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 217–229, doi:10.1002/asi.21450.
[26]
Radicchi, F.; Fortunato, S.; Castellano, C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 2008, 105, 17268–17272, doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105.
