IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v76y2025i12p1660-1681.html

Is OpenAlex suitable for research quality evaluation and which citation indicator is best?

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Thelwall
  • Xiaorui Jiang

Abstract

This article compares (1) citation analysis with OpenAlex and Scopus, testing their citation counts, document type/coverage, and subject classifications and (2) three citation‐based indicators: raw counts, (field and year) Normalized Citation Scores (NCS), and Normalized Log‐transformed Citation Scores (NLCS). Methods (1&2): The indicators calculated from 28.6 million articles were compared through 8704 correlations on two gold standards for 97,816 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 articles. The primary gold standard is ChatGPT scores, and the secondary is the average REF2021 expert review score for the department submitting the article. Results: (1) OpenAlex provides better citation counts than Scopus, and its inclusive document classification/scope does not seem to cause substantial field normalization problems. The broadest OpenAlex classification scheme provides the best indicators. (2) Counterintuitively, raw citation counts are at least as good as nearly all field normalized indicators and better for single years, and NCS is better than NLCS. (1&2) There are substantial field differences. Thus, (1) OpenAlex is suitable for citation analysis in most fields and (2) the major citation‐based indicators seem to work counterintuitively compared to quality judgments. Field normalization seems ineffective because more cited fields tend to produce higher quality work, affecting interdisciplinary research or within‐field topic differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Thelwall & Xiaorui Jiang, 2025. "Is OpenAlex suitable for research quality evaluation and which citation indicator is best?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 76(12), pages 1660-1681, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:76:y:2025:i:12:p:1660-1681
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.70020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70020
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.70020?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kate Barnes & Ahmed Bannour & Levente Török & Roland Molontay, 2026. "Citation distance matters: towards a new metric for evaluating journal impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(3), pages 1505-1524, March.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2025. "Research quality evaluation by AI in the era of large language models: advantages, disadvantages, and systemic effects – An opinion paper," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(10), pages 5309-5321, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jinfst:v:76:y:2025:i:12:p:1660-1681. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    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.