The comparison of normalization procedures based on different classification systems
AbstractIn this paper, we develop a new methodology for comparing normalization procedures based on different classification systems. Firstly, a pair of normalization procedures should be compared using their own classification systems for evaluation purposes. Secondly, when the two procedures are noncomparable according to the above test, then evaluation using a third (or more) classification systems may be forthcoming. In the empirical part of the paper we use: (i) the IDCP method for the evaluation of normalization procedures; (ii) two nested classification systems consisting of 219 sub-fields and 19 fields, together with a systematic and a random assignment of articles to sub-fields (or fields) with the aim of maximizing or minimizing differences across sub-fields (or fields); (iii) six normalization procedures using mean citations in each of the classification systems as normalization factors, and (iv) a large dataset, indexed by Thomson Reuters, in which 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a five-year citation window are assigned to Web of Science subject-categories, or sub-fields using a fractional approach. The results obtained indicate that this methodology may lead to useful conclusions in specific instances.
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 we1306.
Date of creation: Feb 2013
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-27 (All new papers)
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.
- 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.
- Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Open Access publications from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid info:hdl:10016/14543, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
- 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.
- 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.
- Glänzel, Wolfgang & Schubert, András, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven urn:hdl:123456789/101445, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
- Li Yunrong & Filippo Radicchi & Claudio Castellano & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures," Economics Working Papers we1305, 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.