Cited by 155scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Source Normalized Indicators of Citation Impact: An Overview of Different Approaches and an Empirical Comparison

Open access
Waltman, Ludo, van Eck, Nees Jan·2013·Scientometrics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The citing-side subject normalization approach was determined as being the most objective and appropriate for field normalization, when compared to normalization based on predefined subject classification schemes, especially in the case of multidisciplinary journals.

    “For instance, the citing-side subject normalization approach was determined as being the most objective and appropriate for field normalization, when compared to normalization that is based on predefined subject classification schemes, especially in the case of multidisciplinary journals [180,185,235].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Waltman, Ludo
Venue
Scientometrics
Published
2012-11-23
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
699-716
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
OpenAlex
W2165235748
Cited by
155
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 1
FWCI
14.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
citation impact, field normalization, citation practices, journal selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review