Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures

e-Archivo Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Li, Yunrong
dc.contributor.author Radicchi, Filippo
dc.contributor.author Castellano, Claudio
dc.contributor.author Ruiz-Castillo, Javier
dc.date.accessioned 2015-07-16T13:59:50Z
dc.date.available 2016-07-01T22:00:06Z
dc.date.issued 2013-07
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation Yunrong Li, Filippo Radicchi, Claudio Castellano and Javier Ruiz-Castillo, “Quantitative Evaluation of Alternative Field Normalization Procedures”, Journal of Informetrics, 2013, v. 7, n. 3, pp. 476-755
dc.identifier.issn 1751-1577
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10016/21443
dc.description.abstract Wide differences in publication and citation practices make impossible the direct comparison of raw citation counts across scientific disciplines. Recent research has studied new and traditional normalization procedures aimed at suppressing as much as possible these disproportions in citation numbers among scientific domains. Using the recently introduced IDCP (Inequality due to Differences in Citation Practices) method, this paper rigorously tests the performance of six cited-side normalization procedures based on the Thomson Reuters classification system consisting of 172 sub-fields. We use six yearly datasets from 1980 to 2004, with widely varying citation windows from the publication year to May 2011. The main findings are the following three. Firstly, as observed in previous research, within each year the shapes of sub-field citation distributions are strikingly similar. This paves the way for several normalization procedures to perform reasonably well in reducing the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices. Secondly, independently ofthe year of publication and the length of the citation window, the effect of such differences represents about 13% of total citation inequality. Thirdly, a recently introduced two-parameter normalization scheme outperforms the other normalization procedures over the entire period, reducing citation disproportions to a level very close to the minimum achievable given the data and the classification system. However, the traditional procedure of using sub-field mean citations as normalization factors yields also good results.
dc.description.sponsorship Ruiz-Castillo acknowledges financial help from the Spanish MEC through grant ECO2011-29762.
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Elsevier
dc.relation.isversionof http://hdl.handle.net/10016/16741
dc.rights © Elsevier
dc.rights Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/
dc.title Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures
dc.type article
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.001
dc.subject.eciencia Economía
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.001
dc.rights.accessRights openAccess
dc.relation.projectID Gobierno de España. ECO2011-29762
dc.type.version acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.publicationfirstpage 476
dc.identifier.publicationissue 3
dc.identifier.publicationlastpage 755
dc.identifier.publicationtitle Journal of Informetrics
dc.identifier.publicationvolume 7
 Find Full text

Files in this item

*Click on file's image for preview. (Embargoed files's preview is not supported)

The following license files are associated with this item:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record