Publication: An alternative to field-normalization in the aggregation of heterogeneous scientific fields
Loading...
Identifiers
Files
Publication date
2015-04
Defense date
Advisors
Tutors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Impact
Export
Abstract
A possible solution to the problem of aggregating heterogeneous fields in the all-sciences
case relies on the normalization of the raw citations received by all publications. In this paper, we
study an alternative solution that does not require any citation normalization. Provided one uses sizeand
scale-independent indicators, the citation impact of any research unit can be calculated as the
average (weighted by the publication output) of the citation impact that the unit achieves in all fields.
The two alternatives are confronted when the research output of the 500 universities in the 2013
edition of the CWTS Leiden Ranking is evaluated using two citation impact indicators with very
different properties. We use a large Web of Science dataset consisting of 3.6 million articles published
in the 2005-2008 period, and a classification system distinguishing between 5,119 clusters. The main
two findings are as follows. Firstly, differences in production and citation practices between the 3,332
clusters with more than 250 publications account for 22.5% of the overall citation inequality. After
the standard field-normalization procedure where cluster mean citations are used as normalization
factors, this figure is reduced to 4.3%. Secondly, the differences between the university rankings
according to the two solutions for the all-sciences aggregation problem are of a small order of
magnitude for both citation impact indicators.