Elsevier

Journal of Informetrics

Volume 4, Issue 4, October 2010, Pages 644-646
Journal of Informetrics

Letter to the Editor
Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.05.003Get rights and content

References (19)

  • J. Lundberg

    Lifting the crown—citation z-score

    Journal of informetrics

    (2007)
  • S.J. Bensman et al.

    Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: Librarianship vs. ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) methods and their effect on citation measures

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2009)
  • Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and...
  • CWTS. (2008). AMC-specifieke CWTS-analyse 1997–2006. Leiden: CWTS [access via AMC intranet; unpublished,...
  • E. Garfield

    Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?

    Scientometrics

    (1979)
  • W. Glänzel et al.

    A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes

    Scientometrics

    (2003)
  • W. Glänzel et al.

    Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance

    Scientometrics

    (2009)
  • L. Leydesdorff

    Relations among science indicators. I. The static model

    Scientometrics

    (1990)
  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (in preparation). Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (84)

  • Biblioranking fundamental physics

    2019, Journal of Informetrics
  • Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?

    2018, Journal of Informetrics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Cross-field comparisons of citation counts are profoundly influenced by the differences in citation behaviors of scientific fields (Schubert & Braun, 1986). For example, mathematics has a much lower citation density than the biomedical sciences (Leydesdorff & Opthof, 2010). Therefore, citation counts are inadequate scientific measures for evaluative cross-field comparisons, unless we remove the field effects (Waltman, 2016).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text