The DOI matches its Crossref record; 253 of the 253 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of theory and practice in scientometrics
Open accessOverview
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“For example, it is well known that, in Computer sciences, the research findings tend to be published in conference papers [86,87], while books and text-books are more important sources in social sciences and even more so in humanities [26,46].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“In this way, JIF also shows a certain level of discrimination against less popular publication types that, in certain disciplines, are as important as original research articles [2,26,45,46,224,225,229].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“This issue is even more obvious when applying JIF in subject fields where citations mature slower or are delayed, as in Mathematics, Social Sciences and Humanities [26,46,224,229].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“not all articles read are cited, although they may have had a significant impact on the study [46].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“it is a mistake to assume that articles with zero citation have no scientific value, because they first had to go through a peer-review process to be published [46].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
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
Items 201–253 of 253
CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre
Moed, H. F. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.009 · Cited by 63
Wouters, P. F. (1998) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02457980 · Cited by 62
Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don't let correlation coefficients fool you
West, J. D., Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21374 · Cited by 62
Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors
Aziz, N. A., & Rozing, M. P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059814 · Cited by 61
Campanario, J. M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0334-1 · Cited by 61
New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics
Konkiel, S., & Scherer, D. (2013) · Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408 · Cited by 61
Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma
Brumback, R. A. (2008) · Journal of Child Neurology · doi:10.1177/0883073808315170 · Cited by 61
Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. - 2nd ed.
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 61
Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals
Mingers, J., & Burrell, Q. L. (2006) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.012 · Cited by 60
Self-citationMetrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science
Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2008) · Political Studies Review · doi:10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x · Cited by 59
On the scientific context of the concept of communication
Luhmann, N. (1996) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901896035002005 · Cited by 59
Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields
Silva, F. N., Rodrigues, F. A., Oliveira, O. N., et al. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.007 · Cited by 56
Bornmann, L., Loet Leydesdorff, A., & Wang, J. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.003 · Cited by 55
Remaining problems with the “New Crown Indicator” (MNCS) of the CWTS
Loet Leydesdorff, A., & Tobias Opthof, A. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.003 · Cited by 55
Cronin, B. (2001) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.1097.abs · Cited by 55
Bornmann, L. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.04.004 · Cited by 54
History and Evolution of (Biblio)Metrics
Bellis, N. D. (2014) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0004 · Cited by 54
Ràfols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., et al. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 53
Self-citationQuasi-correspondence analysis on scientometric transaction matrices
Tijseen, R. J. W., de Leeuw, J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1987) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02279354 · Cited by 49
A Heuristic Study of the First-Citation Distribution
Egghe, L. (2000) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1005688404778 · Cited by 49
Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: lessons from the Italian experience
Reale, E., Anna, B., & Costantini, A. (2007) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.3152/095820207x227501 · Cited by 48
Price distribution. An exact formulation of Price's “square root law”
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. P. (1985) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017147 · Cited by 47
Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with s-curves
Mingers, J. (2007) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602428 · Cited by 45
Self-citationGoogle Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals
López‐Cózar, E. D., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2012.jul.15 · Cited by 45
A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. P., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0345-6 · Cited by 43
The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices
Todeschini, R. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0346-5 · Cited by 41
Citation Counts: Are They Good Predictors of Rae Scores? A Bibliometric Analysis of RAE 2001Preprint
Mahdi, S., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. D. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1154053 · Cited by 40
A heuristic study of the first-citation distribution
Egghe, L. (2001) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1010594228083 · Cited by 39
Field‐normalized impact factors ( IFs ): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs
Loet Leydesdorff, A., Radicchi, F., Bornmann, L., Castellano, C., & de Nooy, W. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22911 · Cited by 32
Criteria for Evaluating Indicators
Gingras, Y. (2014) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0009 · Cited by 32
Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor
Zitt, M. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0441-7 · Cited by 31
Identifying research fields within business and management: a journal cross-citation analysis
Mingers, J., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2014) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.2014.113 · Cited by 28
Self-citationThe Ethics of Evaluative Bibliometrics
Furner, J. (2014) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0008 · Cited by 28
Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors
Michels, C., & Schmoch, U. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1015-7 · Cited by 26
Glänzel, W. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1556/scient.67.2006.2.12 · Cited by 26
New journal classification methods based on the global h-index
Xu, F., Liu, W. B., & Mingers, J. (2014) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2014.10.011 · Cited by 25
Self-citationLoet Leydesdorff, A., & Felt, U. (2012) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.14504901027 · Cited by 24
Pislyakov, V. V. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2016-1 · Cited by 22
A probabilistic model for the distribution of authorships
Ajiferuke, I. (1991) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199105)42:4 · Cited by 22
Citation Counts: Are They Good Predictors of RAE Scores?
Mahdi, S., & Neely, A. D. (2008) · Cited by 22
A novel approach to citation normalization: A similarity‐based method for creating reference sets
Colliander, C. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23193 · Cited by 20
Webometrics: An introduction to the special issue
Thelwall, M. A., & Vaughan, L. Q. (2004) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20076 · Cited by 20
Problems with the SNIP indicator
Mingers, J. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.004 · Cited by 16
Self-citationThe impact factor of scientific and scholarly journals. : Its use and misuse in research evaluation
Braun, T., & Garfield, E. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10
The Hirsch Family of Bibliometric Indices as an Improved Measure of IS Academic Journal Impact
Cuellar, M. J., Takeda, H., & Truex, D. (2008) · Cited by 9
Bibliometric Analyses on Repository Contents for the Evaluation of Research at Wageningen UR
van Veller, M. G. P., Gerritsma, W., van der Togt, P. L., et al. (2010) · Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries · doi:10.1142/9789814299701_0003 · Cited by 8
(1972) · The Adelphi Papers · doi:10.1080/05679327208448223 · Cited by 6
The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus
Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.003 · Cited by 6
Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documentsPreprint
Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., et al. (2011) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Self-citationCrawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S. Ö., et al. (2012) · Cited by 4
Waltman, L., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 4
Highlights of the Year in JACC 2007
DeMaria, A. N., Bax, J. J., Ben‐Yehuda, O., Clopton, P., Feld, G. K., Ginsburg, G. S., Greenberg, B., Knoke, J. D., Lew, W. Y. W., Lima, J. A. C., et al. (2008) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.12.003 · Cited by 1
Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications
Cameron, B. (2021) · doi:10.32920/14642139.v1 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Braam, 1991, Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. II: Dynamical aspects, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 252, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<252::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
- Chapman, 1989, Assessing research: Citation-count shortcomings, The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8, 339
- Egghe, 1990, Introduction to Informetrics
- Garfield, 1998, The impact factor and using it correctly, Der Unfallchirug, 48, 413
- Holmes, R. (2014). How to win citations and rise in the rankings University Ranking Watch (Vol. 2014).
- Jacso, 2005, As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases, Current Science, 89, 1537
- Jin, 2006, The h-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist, Science Focus, 1, 8
- Jin, 2007, The AR-index: Complementing the h-index, ISSI Newsletter, 3, 6
- Lotka, 1926, Statistics: The frequency distribution of scientific productivity, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317
- Marshakova, 1973, Bibliographic coupling system based on references, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya, 2, 3
- Moxham, 1992, Peer review: A view from the inside, Science and Technology Policy, 5, 7
- Nacke, 1979, Informetrie: Ein neuer Name fur eine neue Disziplin, Nachrichten fur Dokumentation, 30, 219
- Wilson, 1999, Informetrics, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 107
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696
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 indicators: opportunities and limits
Belter, C. W. (2015) · Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.014 · Cited by 315
Mingers, J., & Yang, L. (2017) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.058 · Cited by 184
Self-citationLeydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8 · Cited by 173
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mingers, John
- Venue
- European Journal of Operational Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 246
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 0377-2217 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070242399
- Cited by
- 1,002
- References
- 253
- Citations by year
- 2026: 80 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 150 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 14
- FWCI
- 40.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Operational Research (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
- scientometrics, citation analysis, citation metrics, research performance evaluation, journal impact factor, journal metrics, normalization, mapping sciences, science policy, history of scientometrics
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
