Research quality evaluation: comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors
When evaluating the research output of scientists, institutions or journals, different portfolios of publications are usually compared with each other. e.g., a typical problem is to select, between two scientists of interest, the one with the most cited portfolio. The total number of received citations is a very popular indicator, generally obtained by bibliometric databases. However, databases are not free from errors, which may affect the result of evaluations and comparisons; among these errors, one of the most significant is that of omitted citations. This paper presents a methodology for the pair-wise comparison of publication portfolios, which takes into account the database quality regarding omitted citations. In particular, it is defined a test for establishing if a citation count is (or not) significantly higher than one other. A statistical model for estimating the type-I error related to this test is also developed. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 49 (2015)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:1:p:155-165. See general 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.