Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures
AbstractThe use of citation numbers for the assessment of research quality has become highly relevant in modern science. Although it is well known that scientific domains strongly differ in terms of citation rates, bibliometric indicators currently used in research assessment are often based on the sole use of raw citation numbers. This necessarily leads to unfair evaluation procedures in cross-disciplinary contexts. For this reason, there is an increasing trend towards the formulation of normalization procedures able to suppress disproportions in citation numbers among scientific domains, and thus to lead to more fair cross-disciplinary evaluation criteria. In this paper, we rigorously test the performance of several field normalization procedures devoted to this purpose. We find that four procedures discussed in the literature do worse than the usual normalization with field averages. The latter drastically reduces citation disproportions among scientific disciplines. Finally, we find that a recently introduced two-parameters normalization scheme reduces citation disproportions to a level very close to the best achievable level of reduction.
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 we1305.
Date of creation: Mar 2013
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.:
- Moed, H. F. & Burger, W. J. M. & Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J., 1985. "The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
- Yunrong Li & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The comparison of normalization procedures based on different classification systems," Economics Working Papers we1306, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Davis, Paul & Papanek, Gustav F, 1984. "Faculty Ratings of Major Economics Departments by Citations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 225-30, March.
- Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The comparison of classification-system-based normalization procedures with source normalization alternatives in Waltman and Van Eck (2013)," Economics Working Papers we1318, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
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.