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
Items 101–200 of 1,003
Knowledge management in entrepreneurial universities
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Vecchio, P. D., & Pascale, G. D. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-11-2018-1266 · Cited by 75
A multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications
Bu, Y., Waltman, L., & Huang, Y. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00109 · Cited by 75
Self-citationFair ranking of researchers and research teams
Vavryčuk, V. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195509 · Cited by 75
Early indicators of scientific impact: Predicting citations with altmetrics
Akella, A. P., Alhoori, H., Kondamudi, P. R., Freeman, C., & Zhou, H. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2020.101128 · Cited by 74
Early identification of important patents: Design and validation of citation network metrics
Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., & Lafond, F. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.036 · Cited by 74
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2200-2 · Cited by 80
Geographies and Scientometrics of Research on Natural Hazards
Emmer, A. (2018) · Geosciences · doi:10.3390/geosciences8100382 · Cited by 73
Miranda, R., & García-Carpintero, E. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03210-z · Cited by 72
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.005 · Cited by 68
S&T indicators in the wild: Contextualization and participation for responsible metrics
Ràfols, I. (2018) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy030 · Cited by 80
Bedru, H. D., Yu, S., Xiao, X., Zhang, D., Wan, L., Guo, H., & Xia, F. (2020) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100247 · Cited by 71
Thor, A., Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Mutz, R. (2018) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2733-7 · Cited by 65
Jappe, A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231735 · Cited by 72
Success or failure in equity crowdfunding? A systematic literature review and research perspectives
Mazzocchini, F. J., & Lucarelli, C. (2022) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/mrr-09-2021-0672 · Cited by 63
Normalisation of citation impact in economics
Bornmann, L., & Wohlrabe, K. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03140-w · Cited by 62
Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID ‐19
Liu, M., Bu, Y., Chen, C., Xu, J., Li, D., Leng, Y., Freeman, R. B., Meyer, E. T., Yoon, W., Sung, M., et al. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24612 · Cited by 72
BIBLIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES AND THEIR USE IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2021) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/joes.12415 · Cited by 63
Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference
Sun, M., Danfa, J. B., & Teplitskiy, M. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24582 · Cited by 60
Martínez, J. L. V., Peralta, M. A. C., Ramirez‐Anormaliza, R., Arias, O. O. F., & Paredes, D. V. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16156439 · Cited by 60
The journal Impact Factor and alternative metrics
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2016) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.201642823 · Cited by 60
Decoding team and individual impact in science and invention
Ahmadpoor, M., & Jones, B. F. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1812341116 · Cited by 60
Marx, W., Haunschild, R., Thor, A., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2177-x · Cited by 59
A bibliometric analysis of European Financial Managementʼs first 25 years
Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2020) · European Financial Management · doi:10.1111/eufm.12286 · Cited by 59
Mapping the socially responsible consumption gap research: Review and future research agenda
Falcão, D., & Roseira, C. (2022) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12803 · Cited by 58
Improving Systematic Literature Review with Automation and Bibliometrics
Pulsiri, N., & Vatananan-Thesenvitz, R. (2018) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.23919/picmet.2018.8481746 · Cited by 57
Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources
Walters, W. H. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2761400 · Cited by 56
Jappe, A., Pithan, D. M., & Heinze, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199031 · Cited by 57
Battiston, F., Musciotto, F., Wang, D., Barabási, A.-Ĺ., Szell, M., & Sinatra, R. (2018) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-018-0005-3 · Cited by 56
An Evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar Citations in Operations Management
Chapman, K., & Ellinger, A. E. (2019) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijlm-04-2019-0110 · Cited by 55
Counting methods introduced into the bibliometric research literature 1970–2018: A review
Gauffriau, M. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00141 · Cited by 55
A review of the top 100 most cited papers on food safety
Onyeaka, H. N., Anumudu, C. K., Okolo, C. A., Anyogu, A., Odeyemi, O. A., & Bassey, A. P. (2022) · Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods · doi:10.15586/qas.v14i4.1124 · Cited by 55
González-Ruíz, J. D., Botero-Botero, S., & Grisales, E. A. D. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10124463 · Cited by 58
Vaio, A. D., Zaffar, A., & Chhabra, M. (2024) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/jic-05-2024-0131 · Cited by 54
Bornmann, L., & Marewski, J. N. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03018-x · Cited by 56
Rise in higher education researchers and academic publications
To, W. M., & Yu, B. T. W. (2020) · Emerald Open Research · doi:10.35241/emeraldopenres.13437.1 · Cited by 52
An advanced bibliometric analysis and future research insights on safety of hydrogen energy
Zhang, D., Jiang, M., Li, G., & Tang, Y. (2023) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.109833 · Cited by 52
Pronti, A., Auci, S., & Berbel, J. (2024) · Agricultural Water Management · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108838 · Cited by 54
The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper
Rahman, M. T., Regenstein, J. M., Kassim, N. L. A., & Haque, N. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.002 · Cited by 51
Torres‐Salinas, D., Valderrama, P., & Arroyo‐Machado, W. (2022) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101315 · Cited by 53
Scholarly impact assessment: a survey of citation weighting solutions
Cai, L., Tian, J., Liu, J., Bai, X., Lee, I., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2018) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2973-6 · Cited by 50
Considering author sequence in all-author co-citation analysis
Bu, Y., Wang, B., Chinchilla‐Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. R., Huang, Y., & Huang, W.-B. (2020) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102300 · Cited by 51
Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges
Triggle, C. R., MacDonald, R. S., Triggle, D. J., & Grierson, D. S. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481 · Cited by 53
Vieira, E. S. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04715-4 · Cited by 49
Cimini, G., Zaccaria, A., & Gabrielli, A. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.002 · Cited by 49
Predicting the research performance of early career scientists
Lee, D. H. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03232-7 · Cited by 49
Task specialization across research careers
Robinson‐García, N., Costas, R., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., & Nane, G. F. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.60586 · Cited by 48
Liu, M., Zhang, N., Hu, X., Jaiswal, A. K., Xu, J., Chen, H., Ding, Y., & Bu, Y. (2022) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101295 · Cited by 54
Urbinati, A., Esfandabadi, Z. S., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2023) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12540 · Cited by 48
An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better
Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. A. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03512-7 · Cited by 48
Evaluating Research and Researchers by the Journal Impact Factor: Is It Better than Coin Flipping?
Brito, R., & Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2019) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.009 · Cited by 47
Changes in Energy Sector Strategies: A Literature Review
Sulich, A., & Sołoducho-Pelc, L. M. (2022) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en15197068 · Cited by 47
Mehraj, N., Mateu, C., & Cabeza, L. F. (2024) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2024.112794 · Cited by 46
Scientific mapping and trend of conceptual change: A bibliometric analysis
Amiruddin, M. Z. B., Samsudin, A., Suhandi, A., Çoştu, B., & Prahanı, B. K. (2024) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101208 · Cited by 46
Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network
Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N., & Mariani, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.014 · Cited by 46
On the lack of women researchers in the Middle East and North Africa
El-Ouahi, J., & Larivière, V. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04768-5 · Cited by 48
Incidencia de la Inteligencia Artificial en la educación
Tafur, A. T. V., & Molina, R. E. F. (2023) · Educatio Siglo XXI · doi:10.6018/educatio.555681 · Cited by 45
Pech, G., & Delgado, C. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03660-w · Cited by 45
Sleeping Beauties and their princes in innovation studies
Teixeira, A. A. C., Vieira, P. C. C., & Abreu, A. P. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2186-9 · Cited by 45
Lei, L., & Sun, Y. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03338-y · Cited by 43
What Is Wrong With the Current Evaluative Bibliometrics?
Põder, E. (2022) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2021.824518 · Cited by 43
Roy, A., Jha, A. K., Kumar, A., Bhattacharya, T., Chakraborty, S., Raval, N. P., & Kumar, M. (2023) · Air Quality Atmosphere & Health · doi:10.1007/s11869-023-01478-y · Cited by 43
Broccardo, L., Giordino, D., Yaqub, M. Z., & Alshibani, S. M. (2024) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2936 · Cited by 43
Circular ecosystems: Past, present, and future research directions
Aryee, R., Kanda, W., Geissdoerfer, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2025) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.70061 · Cited by 43
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.002 · Cited by 43
Explore with caution: mapping the evolution of scientific interest in physics
Aleta, A., Meloni, S., Perra, N., & Moreno, Y. (2019) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0205-9 · Cited by 43
A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)
Janssens, A. C. J. W., Goodman, M., Powell, K. R., & Gwinn, M. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2002536 · Cited by 42
Leveraging Citation Networks to Visualize Scholarly Influence Over Time
Portenoy, J., Hullman, J., & West, J. D. (2017) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2017.00008 · Cited by 42
Nazaruddin, L. O., Gyenge, B., Fekete‐Farkas, M., & Lakner, Z. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075680 · Cited by 42
Integrating resilience and sustainability: A systematic analysis of resilient cities using ISO 37123
Chiroli, D. M. D. G., Menezes, M. G., Zola, F. C., Aragão, F. V., de Almeida, R. D., & Tebcherani, S. M. (2023) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103960 · Cited by 42
Global Research Trends in Financial Transactions
Abad‐Segura, E., & González-Zamar, M.-D. (2020) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math8040614 · Cited by 42
Ağaç, G., Sevim, F., Celik, O., Bostan, S., Erdem, R., & Yalcin, Y. I. (2023) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-04-2023-0168 · Cited by 42
Critical Rationalism and the Search for Standard (Field-Normalized) Indicators in Bibliometrics
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.05.002 · Cited by 41
Evolution of organizational agility research: a retrospective view
Tanushree, T., Sahoo, C. K., & Chaubey, A. (2023) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086 · Cited by 45
Open Access in Theory and Practice
Pinfield, S., Wakeling, S., Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429276842 · Cited by 46
López‐Pernas, S., Saqr, M., & Apiola, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_5 · Cited by 41
The impact of knowledge management on the digital supply chain – a bibliometric literature review
Gagliardi, A. R., Festa, G., Usai, A., Dell’Anno, D., & Rossi, M. (2023) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-07-2022-0206 · Cited by 40
Broccardo, L., Vola, P., Zicari, A. P., & Alshibani, S. M. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122513 · Cited by 40
Exploring the determinants of research performance for early-career researchers: a literature review
Lee, D. H. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04868-2 · Cited by 40
Galkin, A., Samchuk, G., Kopytkov, D., & Thompson, R. G. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-01754-0 · Cited by 43
Evaluating Article Search and Selection Procedures in Special Education Literature Reviews
King, S. A., Davidson, K. A., Chitiyo, A., & Apple, D. (2018) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932518813142 · Cited by 43
Lindahl, J., Colliander, C., & Danell, R. (2020) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1861596 · Cited by 46
Article age- and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum
Zanotto, E. D., & de Carvalho, V. G. R. L. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03877-3 · Cited by 40
Societal Technological Megatrends: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1982 to 2021
Jeflea, F. V., Dănciulescu, D., Sitnikov, C. S., Filipeanu, D., Park, J. O., & Țugui, A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031543 · Cited by 40
Explaining the transatlantic gap in research excellence
Bonaccorsi, A. J., Cicero, T., Haddawy, P., & Hassan, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2180-2 · Cited by 39
Mansoori, P. (2018) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.08.020701 · Cited by 39
Scholarly reputation building in the digital age: an activity-specific approach. Review article
Herman, E., & Nicholas, D. (2019) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2019.ene.02 · Cited by 44
Quantifying revolutionary discoveries: Evidence from Nobel prize-winning papers
Wei, C., Li, J., & Shi, D. (2023) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103252 · Cited by 38
Effect of publication month on citation impact
Donner, P. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.012 · Cited by 38
Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers
Lee, D. H. (2018) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2943-z · Cited by 38
Fonteyn, P., Lizin, S., & Maes, W. (2019) · Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells · doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110325 · Cited by 40
Ranking Accounting Journals by Topical Area and Methodology
Barrick, J. A., Mecham, N. W., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. (2016) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2848560 · Cited by 38
Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis
Caulley, L., Cheng, W., Catalá-López, F., Whelan, J., Khoury, M., Ferraro, J., Husereau, D., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.013 · Cited by 37
The Influence of Environmental, Social, and Governance Issues in the Banking Industry
González-Ruíz, J. D., Ospina-Patiño, C., & Marín‐Rodríguez, N. J. (2024) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci14070156 · Cited by 37
Ye, F. Y., & Bornmann, L. (2017) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23846 · Cited by 37
Interpreting CNCIs on a country-scale: The effect of domestic and international collaboration type
Potter, R. W. K., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. R. (2020) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2020.101075 · Cited by 37
Topic diversity: A discipline scheme‐free diversity measurement for journals
Bu, Y., Li, M., Gu, W., & Huang, W.-B. (2020) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24433 · Cited by 37
International scientific collaboration of post-Soviet countries: a bibliometric analysis
Matveeva, N., Андреевич, С. И., & Lovakov, A. V. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04274-0 · Cited by 37
Al-Jamimi, H. A., BinMakhashen, G. M., & Bornmann, L. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04490-8 · Cited by 36
Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration
Liu, X., Bu, Y., Li, M., & Li, J. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24840 · Cited by 36
Examining the quality of the corresponding authorship field in Web of Science and Scopus
Chinchilla‐Rodríguez, Z., Costas, R., Robinson‐García, N., & Larivière, V. (2024) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00288 · Cited by 42
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
