The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators
Open accessAbstract
An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on individual author-level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application. As such we provide a schematic overview of author-level indicators, where the indicators are broadly categorised into indicators of publication count, indicators that qualify output (on the level of the researcher and journal), indicators of the effect of output (effect as citations, citations normalized to field or the researcher’s body of work), indicators that rank the individual’s work and indicators of impact over time. Supported by an extensive appendix we present how the indicators are computed, the complexity of the mathematical calculation and demands to data-collection, their advantages and limitations as well as references to surrounding discussion in the bibliometric community. The Appendix supporting this study is available online as supplementary material.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Intellectual and Social Organization Of the Sciences
Whitley, R. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199240531.001.0001 · Cited by 1,076
Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105 · Cited by 828
Lost in publication: how measurement harms science
Lawrence, P. (2008) · Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics · doi:10.3354/esep00079 · Cited by 127
Cited by
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
Bibliometric analysis: A few suggestions
Hassan, W., & Duarte, A. E. (2024) · Current Problems in Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102640 · Cited by 303
Swedberg, R. (2020) · The Production of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.002 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2014-09-06
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 125-158
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2125236256
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3
- The paper
- Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.