A Systematic Empirical Comparison of Different Approaches for Normalizing Citation Impact Indicators
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [185]
Performance evaluation of normalization approaches also depends on the study design.
“On the other hand, performance evaluation of normalization approaches also depends on the study design [185,233].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [185]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 153
- Authors
- Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Waltman, Ludo
- ORCID
- Waltman, Ludo
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 833-849
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050524575
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 16.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (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 indicators, normalization, field classification, h-index, publication 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
