The comparison of normalization procedures based on different classification systems
In 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.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +34-91 6249594
Fax: +34-91 6249329
Web page: http://www.eco.uc3m.esEmail:
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Juan A. Crespo & Neus Herranz & Yunrongs Li & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the Web of Sciences subject category level," Economics Working Papers we1303, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2013. "A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 833-849.
- Radicchi, Filippo & Castellano, Claudio, 2012. "Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 121-130.
- 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.
- 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.
- Moed, Henk F., 2010. "Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 265-277.
- Li, Yunrong & Radicchi, Filippo & Castellano, Claudio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2013.
"Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures,"
Journal of Informetrics,
Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 746-755.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cte:werepe:we1306. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.