Differences in citation impact across scientific fields
AbstractThis paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in the 22 broad fields distinguished by Thomson Scientific. The paper is based on a model in which the number of citations received by any article is a function of the article’s scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. The model includes a key assumption according to which articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a five-year citation window, we find that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for about 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy for making comparisons of citation counts across fields is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions over a large quantile interval. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we provide a set of exchange rates to express citations in any field into citations in the all-fields case. (This can be done for articles in the interval between, approximately, the 71st and the 99th percentiles of their citation distributions). The answer is very satisfactory for 20 out of 22 fields. Secondly, when we normalize the raw citation data with our exchange rates, the effect of differences in citation practices is reduced to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields' mean citation rates is found to be equally successfully.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía in its series Economics Working Papers with number we1206.
Date of creation: Jun 2012
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011.
"The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates,"
Economics Working Papers
we1109, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2010. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Economics Working Papers we1038, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño-Ortín, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2010. "The Skewness of Science in 219 Sub-Fields and a Number of Aggregates," CEPR Discussion Papers 8126, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Shorrocks, A F, 1980. "The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 613-25, April.
- Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1984. "Inequality Decomposition by Population Subgroups," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1369-85, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.