Field normalization at different aggregation levels
AbstractThis paper studies the impact of differences in citation practices using the model introduced in Crespo et al. (2012) according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. Using a dataset of about 4.4 million articles published in 1998- 2003 with a five-year citation window, the main results are the following four. Firstly, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) to express the citation counts of articles in a wide quantile interval into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. For example, in the fractional case we find that in 187 out of 219 sub-fields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. ERs are estimated over the [660, 978] interval that, on average, covers about 62% of all citations. Secondly, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or the sub-field mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Thirdly, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt the multiplicative approach. Fourthly, whenever we are restricted to an intermediate aggregate level with 19 fields, the estimation of the ERs and the linear normalization procedures also offer good results. However, the aggregation of normalized distributions at the lowest aggregate level using sub-field ERs (or sub-field mean citations) as normalization factors, lead to similar or slightly better results at the field level
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 we1222.
Date of creation: Dec 2012
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-09-30 (All new papers)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.