The DOI matches its Crossref record; 359 of the 377 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Abstract
Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“When citations are missing, inaccurate, or fabricated, the resulting break in the evidence chain can obscure logical dependencies, weaken argumentation, and jeopardize academic integrity at the level of both individual papers and the broader literature [10, 22, 26].”
From CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“having a larger citation window (i.e., time period after publication in which an article can be cited) is known to influence citation counts (Waltman, 2016).”
From Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science (2023) · cites this paper as Waltman, 2016
In the citing paper
“Moreover, because DBs are continuously expanding both their contents and capabilities, the information provided in the early studies, performed more than several years ago, may have become obsolete and, thus, could be misleading [26].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Therefore, it is not surprising that the coverage of books and conference proceedings both in WoS and Scopus was generally determined to be insufficient, aiming to use the DBs as the data sources for analyzing or evaluating disciplines where these source types are the most prevalent [26,44,88].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
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 [26]
In the citing paper
“However, although the share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%) [52], the majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS [26,39,53,55,57,59].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Scopus was shown to provide higher citation counts than WoS, even in the studies that were performed before an execution of Scopus Cited Reference Expansion Program, when the citations in Scopus were only covered up to 1996 [26,44,60].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“The results of publication analysis involving various types of documents could also be affected by the inconsistencies in document types between the DBs”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“in analyses by document types these publications would be counted twice, while citation counts per publication might decrease”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Consequently, over twenty different bibliometric indicators are currently available, and new versions or alternative metrics are still being actively developed [26].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
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 [26]
In the citing paper
“Possibilities to export or download data from the web-interfaces for external analyses are also usually limited, and the number of data rows available to export in one batch differs between the DBs [9,26].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“WoS also calculates an Immediacy index, which is basically a one-year JIF [26,45].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Another possibility for analyzing larger data sets is to use additional online tools, such as InCites (for WoS data) and SciVal (for Scopus data) [26,219].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
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 [26]
In the citing paper
“Generally, the WoS subject classification scheme is most commonly used for normalization purposes [26].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“The same applies in evaluations of larger entities, such as research or academic institutions and countries, since they can only be compared to those that are similar in size [2,26].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cites
The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998) · Computer Networks and ISDN Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00110-x · Cited by 16,004
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Visualizing Bibliometric Networks
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13 · Cited by 3,884
Self-citationThe Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1136099 · Cited by 3,615
Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/520429a · Cited by 2,828
Self-citationGarfield, E. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · Cited by 2,788
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447
Theory and practise of the g-index
Egghe, L. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 · Cited by 2,354
Flagged first, then by citations
18 of the 377 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Albarrán, 2011, High-and low-impact citation measures: Empirical applications, Journal of Informetrics, 5, 122, 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.001 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 · Cited by 16,064
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
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Chen, C. (2017) · Journal of Data and Information Science · doi:10.1515/jdis-2017-0006 · Cited by 2,134
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., Petersen, A. M., Radicchi, F., Sinatra, R., Uzzi, B., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao0185 · Cited by 1,497
Self-citationConstructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting
Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006 · Cited by 1,416
Self-citationCitations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244019829575 · Cited by 1,257
Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x · Cited by 899
Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Chiaroni, D., Del Vecchio, P., & Urbinati, A. (2020) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2466 · Cited by 672
Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review
Rijcke, S. D., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv038 · Cited by 467
Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003 · Cited by 417
Self-citationThe science of science: From the perspective of complex systems
Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., & Stanley, E. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.001 · Cited by 420
A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics
Castillo‐Vergara, M., Álvarez‐Marín, A., & Placencio-Hidalgo, D. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.011 · Cited by 350
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Vecchio, P. D., & Pascale, G. D. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119917 · Cited by 350
The strain on scientific publishing
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327 · Cited by 345
Intersectional inequalities in science
Kozlowski, D., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Monroe‐White, T. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2113067119 · Cited by 374
Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation
Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J., & Herzog, C. (2018) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2018.00023 · Cited by 325
Mastering the digital transformation through organizational capabilities: A conceptual framework
Konopik, J., Jahn, C., Schuster, T., Hoßbach, N., & Pflaum, A. (2021) · Digital Business · doi:10.1016/j.digbus.2021.100019 · Cited by 359
Mariani, M. M., & Borghi, M. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119752 · Cited by 325
Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001 · Cited by 297
Self-citationDimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?
Thelwall, M. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006 · Cited by 294
Big data and analytics in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review
Mariani, M. M., & Baggio, R. (2021) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-03-2021-0301 · Cited by 311
Revisiting the idea of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities for digital transformation
Mele, G., Capaldo, G., Secundo, G., & Corvello, V. (2023) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-02-2023-0121 · Cited by 267
Research Weaving: Visualizing the Future of Research Synthesis
Nakagawa, S., Samarasinghe, G., Haddaway, N., Westgate, M. J., O’Dea, R. E., Noble, D. W. A., & Lagisz, M. (2018) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.007 · Cited by 278
Ranking in evolving complex networks
Liao, H., Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, M.-Y. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.05.001 · Cited by 239
Sample size in bibliometric analysis
Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. R. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7 · Cited by 227
Lombardi, R., & Secundo, G. (2020) · Meditari Accountancy Research · doi:10.1108/medar-04-2020-0870 · Cited by 221
The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation
Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253397 · Cited by 229
Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda
Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120118 · Cited by 238
A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators
Barsotti, L. B., & Lando, T. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2351-9 · Cited by 206
Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2017) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004 · Cited by 205
Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., & Duma, D. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173152 · Cited by 202
The Changing Landscape of Neuroscience Research, 2006–2015: A Bibliometric Study
Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00120 · Cited by 209
Digital transformation: A meta-review and guidelines for future research
dos Reis, J. C. G., & Melão, N. F. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12834 · Cited by 201
Interpreting Bibliometric Data
Szomszor, M., Adams, J. R., Fry, R., Gebert, C., Pendlebury, D., Potter, R. W. K., & Rogers, G. (2021) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2020.628703 · Cited by 203
Mingers, J., & Yang, L. (2017) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.058 · Cited by 184
Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8 · Cited by 173
Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics
Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Fan, Y., Di, Z., Wang, Y., Stanley, H. E., & Havlin, S. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11401-8 · Cited by 177
Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics
van Raan, A. F. J. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_10 · Cited by 174
The Digital Agricultural Revolution: A Bibliometric Analysis Literature Review
Bertoglio, R., Corbo, C., Renga, F. M., & Matteucci, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3115258 · Cited by 183
Sustainable biofuel economy: A mapping through bibliometric research
Hasan, M., Abedin, M. Z., Amin, M. B., Nekmahmud, M., & Oláh, J. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117644 · Cited by 170
What drives global science? The four competing narratives
Marginson, S. (2021) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822 · Cited by 156
Hajkowicz, S. A., Sanderson, C., Karimi, S., Bratanova, A., & Naughtin, C. K. (2023) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102260 · Cited by 186
Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers
Miranda, R., & García-Carpintero, E. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.006 · Cited by 158
What is global higher education?
Marginson, S. (2022) · Oxford Review of Education · doi:10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438 · Cited by 145
Technological innovation-enabling industry 4.0 paradigm: A systematic literature review
Cannavacciuolo, L., Ferraro, G., Ponsiglione, C., Primario, S., & Quinto, I. (2023) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102733 · Cited by 144
Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North
Confraria, H., Godinho, M. M., & Wang, L. (2016) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.004 · Cited by 142
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Marx, W. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2115-y · Cited by 10
Chen, H., & Luo, X. (2019) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2019.100959 · Cited by 133
Intellectual synthesis in mentorship determines success in academic careers
Liénard, J., Achakulvisut, T., Acuna, D. E., & David, S. V. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07034-y · Cited by 131
Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model
Marginson, S., & Xu, X. (2022) · Comparative Education Review · doi:10.1086/722760 · Cited by 131
Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science
Liu, L., Jones, B. F., Uzzi, B., & Wang, D. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01562-4 · Cited by 143
Research portfolio analysis and topic prominence
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.002 · Cited by 127
‘All things are in flux’: China in global science
Marginson, S. (2021) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-021-00712-9 · Cited by 125
How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess
Szomszor, M., Pendlebury, D., & Adams, J. R. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5 · Cited by 133
Secundo, G., Vecchio, P. D., & Mele, G. (2020) · International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · doi:10.1108/ijebr-07-2020-0453 · Cited by 123
The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University
Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3 · Cited by 120
Global science and national comparisons: beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics
Marginson, S. (2021) · Comparative Education · doi:10.1080/03050068.2021.1981725 · Cited by 120
Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations
Szomszor, M., & Adie, E. A. (2022) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00204 · Cited by 132
Pugliese, E., Cimini, G., Patelli, A., Zaccaria, A., Pietronero, L., & Gabrielli, A. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52767-5 · Cited by 118
Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts
Corrêa, E. A., Jr., Silva, F. N., Costa, L. D. F., & Amancio, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.003 · Cited by 114
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Address Water Allocation Problems: A Systematic Review
Gebre, S. L., Cattrysse, D., & Orshoven, J. V. (2021) · Water · doi:10.3390/w13020125 · Cited by 114
A bibliometric analysis of creative industries: Current trends and future directions
Dharmani, P., Das, S., & Prashar, S. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.037 · Cited by 122
Managing customer knowledge through the use of big data analytics in tourism research
Centobelli, P., & Ndou, V. (2019) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2018.1564739 · Cited by 110
Gebre, S. L., Cattrysse, D., Alemayehu, E., & Orshoven, J. V. (2021) · International Soil and Water Conservation Research · doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.04.005 · Cited by 109
How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103831 · Cited by 113
Board gender diversity and firm performance: evidence from Latin America
Marquez-Cardenas, V., González-Ruíz, J. D., & Grisales, E. A. D. (2022) · Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment · doi:10.1080/20430795.2021.2017256 · Cited by 108
Publication trends and knowledge mapping in 3D printing in orthopaedics
Vaishya, R., Patralekh, M. K., Vaish, A., Agarwal, A. K., & Vijay, V. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma · doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.006 · Cited by 106
Vélez-Estévez, A., García‐Sánchez, P., Moral-Muñoz, J. A., & Cobo, M. J. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04486-4 · Cited by 117
Management of Green Intellectual Capital: Evidence-Based Literature Review and Future Directions
Benevene, P., Buonomo, I., Kong, E., Pansini, M., & Farnese, M. L. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13158349 · Cited by 104
Field Normalization of Scientometric Indicators
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_11 · Cited by 113
Self-citationRamirez, A. G., Monsalve, J. C., González-Ruíz, J. D., Almonacid, P. M., & Alejandro Peña, P. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14095012 · Cited by 102
Sustainable Financial Products in the Latin America Banking Industry: Current Status and Insights
Mejia-Escobar, J. C., González-Ruiz, J. D., & Duque-Grisales, E. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12145648 · Cited by 98
Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong
Waltman, L., & Traag, V. (2020) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.23418.1 · Cited by 97
Self-citationInternational collaboration in Brazilian science: financing and impact
Mcmanus, C. M., Neves, A. A. B., Maranhão, A. Q., Filho, A. G. S., & Santana, J. M. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03728-7 · Cited by 93
COVID-19 and finance scholarship: A systematic and bibliometric analysis
Boubaker, S., Goodell, J. W., Kumar, S., & Sureka, R. (2022) · International Review of Financial Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102458 · Cited by 92
Fault diagnosis of photovoltaic systems using artificial intelligence: A bibliometric approach
Sepúlveda-Oviedo, E. H., Travé-Massuyès, L., Subias, A., Pavlov, M., & Alonso, C. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21491 · Cited by 92
Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation
Petersen, A. M., Pan, R. K., Fabio Pammolli, A., & Fortunato, S. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.009 · Cited by 91
Current status and research trends of lithium disilicate in dentistry: A bibliometric analysis
Chen, Y., Yeung, A. W. K., Pow, E., & Tsoi, J. K. H. (2020) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.012 · Cited by 89
Measuring scientific contributions with modified fractional counting
Sivertsen, G., Rousseau, R., & Zhang, L. (2019) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.010 · Cited by 88
An analysis of the intellectual structure of research on the financial economics of precious metals
Corbet, S., Dowling, M., Gao, X., Huang, S., Lucey, B. M., & Vigne, S. A. (2019) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101416 · Cited by 88
Regional resilience: a stretched concept?
Fröhlich, K., & Hassink, R. (2018) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1494137 · Cited by 86
Investigating sustainable consumption behaviors: a bibliometric analysis
Vergura, D. T., Zerbini, C., Luceri, B., & Palladino, R. (2023) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-06-2022-0491 · Cited by 86
Consistency and validity of interdisciplinarity measures
Wang, Q., & Schneider, J. W. (2019) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00011 · Cited by 85
The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing
Klebel, T., & Ross‐Hellauer, T. (2023) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00245 · Cited by 85
John, D., Hussin, N., Shahibi, M. S., Ahmad, M., Hashim, H., & Ametefe, D. S. (2023) · Outlook on Agriculture · doi:10.1177/00307270231205640 · Cited by 85
A Systematic Mapping Study on Customer Loyalty and Brand Management
Tartaglione, A. M., Cavacece, Y., Russo, G. M., & Granata, G. (2019) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci9010008 · Cited by 84
And the credit goes to … - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists
Pruschak, G., & Hopp, C. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267312 · Cited by 84
Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Sivertsen, G. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174205 · Cited by 83
Knowledge management within a strategic alliances context: past, present and future
Bamel, N., Pereira, V., Bamel, U., & Cappiello, G. (2021) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-06-2020-0443 · Cited by 61
Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level
Marina, T., & Андреевич, С. И. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03899-x · Cited by 83
Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality
Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., & Zhang, Y. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.005 · Cited by 85
The effect of Russian University Excellence Initiative on publications and collaboration patterns
Matveeva, N., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2020.101110 · Cited by 82
Sustainability Research in the Wine Industry: A Bibliometric Approach
Montalvo‐Falcón, J. V., Sánchez‐García, E., Marco‐Lajara, B., & Martínez‐Falcó, J. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13030871 · Cited by 82
The convergence of BIM, AI and IoT: Reshaping the future of prefabricated construction
Rangasamy, V., & Yang, J.-B. (2024) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108606 · Cited by 84
The memory of science: Inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network
Pan, R. K., Petersen, A. M., Pammolli, F., & Fortunato, S. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.005 · Cited by 79
Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. A. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001 · Cited by 83
Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2111-2 · Cited by 78
Basson, I., Blanckenberg, J. P., & Prozesky, H. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03734-9 · Cited by 77
Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact
Lu, C., Bu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul, L., & Zhang, C. (2019) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004 · Cited by 77
Cucari, N., Tutore, I., Montera, R., & Profita, S. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2346 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Waltman, L.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Waltman, Ludo
- ORCID
- Waltman, Ludo
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-391
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W767067438
- Semantic Scholar
- 83199b297541263fd15b057797e0093e528602ae
- Cited by
- 1,356
- References
- 377
- Citations by year
- 2026: 204 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 137 · 2023: 158 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 128 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 32
- FWCI
- 97.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Higher Education Funding Council for England
- 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
- citation impact indicators, research evaluation, bibliographic databases, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, indicator normalization, field normalization, journal impact indicators
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
