IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v1y2007i2p145-154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lifting the crown—citation z-score

Author

Listed:
  • Lundberg, Jonas

Abstract

Researchers worldwide are increasingly being assessed by the citation rates of their papers. These rates have potential impact on academic promotions and funding decisions. Currently there are several different ways that citation rates are being calculated, with the state of the art indicator being the crown indicator. This indicator has flaws and improvements could be considered. An item oriented field normalized citation score average (c¯f) is an incremental improvement as it differs from the crown indicator in so much as normalization takes place on the level of individual publication (or item) rather than on aggregated levels, and therefore assigns equal weight to each publication. The normalization on item level also makes it possible to calculate the second suggested indicator: total field normalized citation score (Σcf). A more radical improvement (or complement) is suggested in the item oriented field normalized logarithm-based citation z-score average (c¯fz[ln] or citation z-score). This indicator assigns equal weight to each included publication and takes the citation rate variability of different fields into account as well as the skewed distribution of citations over publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Lundberg, Jonas, 2007. "Lifting the crown—citation z-score," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 145-154.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:1:y:2007:i:2:p:145-154
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157706000265
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grant Lewison, 1996. "The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 25-36, April.
    2. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    3. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    4. Jonas Lundberg & Anette Fransson & Mats Brommels & John Sk?r & Inger Lundkvist, 2006. "Is it better or just the same? Article identification strategies impact bibliometric assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 183-197, January.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    6. Allan P. O. Williams, 2006. "Impact of Strategies," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Rise of Cass Business School, chapter 13, pages 167-181, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou & Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 96-107, January.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    4. Pedro Albarrán & Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2015. "Differences in citation impact across countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(3), pages 512-525, March.
    5. Neus Herranz & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "Multiplicative and fractional strategies when journals are assigned to several subfields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2195-2205, November.
    6. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 385-397, August.
    7. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2018. "Individual and field citation distributions in 29 broad scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 868-892.
    8. Rocío Guardiola-Wanden-Berghe & Javier Sanz-Valero & Carmina Wanden-Berghe, 2013. "Medical subject headings versus American Psychological Association Index Terms: indexing eating disorders," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 305-311, January.
    9. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    11. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    12. Staša Milojević, 2020. "Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1301-1315, June.
    13. Daniele Rotolo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2014. "Matching MEDLINE/PubMed Data with Web of Science (WOS): A Routine in R language," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Neus Herranz & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The end of the “European Paradox”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 453-464, April.
    15. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The evaluation of citation distributions," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 291-310, March.
    16. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Henk F. Moed & Ton J. Nederhof & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2003. "The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    17. Loet Leydesdorff & Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols, 2012. "Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject Headings of PubMed," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2239-2253, November.
    18. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    19. Loet Leydesdorff & Jordan A. Comins & Aaron A. Sorensen & Lutz Bornmann & Iina Hellsten, 2016. "Cited references and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) as two different knowledge representations: clustering and mappings at the paper level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2077-2091, December.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "Can technology life-cycles be indicated by diversity in patent classifications? The crucial role of variety," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1441-1451, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:1:y:2007:i:2:p:145-154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.