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
Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · Cited by 1,784
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410810844150 · Cited by 1,607 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, this review also does not cover literature on the meaning of citations (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008; Nicolaisen, 2007), literature on the practical application of citation impact indicators in the context of research evaluation, and literature on the correlation between citation impact…”
BackgroundCitation Analysis in Research Evaluation
Moed, H. F. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,493
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 · Cited by 1,002
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974
Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z · Cited by 964
A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero‐Bote, V. P., & Anegón, F. D. M. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002 · Cited by 867
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001 · Cited by 841
Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21062 · Cited by 833
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
Kulkarni, A. V. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · Cited by 821
Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review
Nederhof, A. J. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2 · Cited by 785
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · Cited by 752
CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.006 · Cited by 738
Self-citationComparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001 · Cited by 733
Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Bar‐Ilan, J. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y · Cited by 720
A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22748 · Cited by 700
Self-citationComparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research
Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23437 · Cited by 693
A Hirsch-type index for journals
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. P. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4 · Cited by 669
Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics
Nicolaisen, J. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21181 · Cited by 653
Measuring Contextual Citation Impact of Scientific Journals
Moed, H. F. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002 · Cited by 628
A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0 · Cited by 625
Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(76)90048-0 · Cited by 601
van Raan, A. F. J. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018543.82441.f1 · Cited by 579
A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures
Bollen, J., Herbert Van De Sompel, A., Hagberg, A. A., & Chute, R. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022 · Cited by 576
Journal impact measures in bibliometric research
Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1014848323806 · Cited by 558
Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics
Bellis, N. D. (2009) · IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) · Cited by 548
Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4 · Cited by 548
Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. M. (1983) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(83)90005-7 · Cited by 529
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z · Cited by 507
Cronin, B. (2001) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.1097 · Cited by 500
Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000034384.35498.7d · Cited by 498
Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved?
Garfield, E. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7054.411 · Cited by 491
Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review
Bar‐Ilan, J. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001 · Cited by 490
Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23266 · Cited by 484
Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals
Bergstrom, C. T. (2007) · College & Research Libraries News · doi:10.5860/crln.68.5.7804 · Cited by 479
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
Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21688 · Cited by 456
The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation
Waltman, L., Calero‐Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E., Tijssen, R., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., van Raan, A. F. J., Visser, M. S., & Wouters, P. F. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22708 · Cited by 452
Self-citationTowards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001 · Cited by 438
Self-citationvan Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1010549719484 · Cited by 433
Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation
Wang, J. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9 · Cited by 427
Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477 · Cited by 418
Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003 · Cited by 417
Self-citationHirsch, J. E. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9 · Cited by 411
A Further Step Forward in Measuring Journals’ Scientific Prestige: The SJR2 Indicator
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001 · Cited by 406
Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M. A., & Herbert Van De Sompel, A. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z · Cited by 403
Hicks, D. M. (1999) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02457380 · Cited by 391
Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?
Vanclay, J. K. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0 · Cited by 388
Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study
Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520810865958 · Cited by 384
Google Scholar: the pros and the cons
Jacsó, P. (2005) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520510598066 · Cited by 383
Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20874 · Cited by 383
A macro study of self-citation
Aksnes, D. W. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1021919228368 · Cited by 357
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. (2007) · Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics · doi:10.3354/esep00084 · Cited by 351
The inconsistency of the h‐index
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21678 · Cited by 338
Self-citationMeasuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice
Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (2014) · Cited by 335
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. P. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1022378804087 · Cited by 333
History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences
Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x · Cited by 326
How do you define and measure research productivity?
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8 · Cited by 325
Nicolaisen, J. (2007) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410120 · Cited by 309
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-citationLarivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006) · J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. · doi:10.1002/asi.20349 · Cited by 294
The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age
Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22731 · Cited by 293
Production and Citation Measures in the Sociology of Science: The Problem of Multiple Authorship
Lindsey, D. (1980) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631278001000202 · Cited by 285
Lifting the crown—citation z-score
Lundberg, J. (2007) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007 · Cited by 284
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
de Winter, J., ZADPOOR, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 · Cited by 275
Schubert, A. P., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1989) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02093234 · Cited by 274
Harzing, A.-W. K., & van der Wal, R. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20953 · Cited by 274
The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators
Delgado López‐Cózar, E., Robinson‐García, N., & Torres‐Salinas, D. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23056 · Cited by 272
Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal
Zhu, X., Turney, P. D., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23179 · Cited by 268
van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., van Raan, A. F. J., Klautz, R. J. M., & Peul, W. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 · Cited by 253
Self-citationThe Hirsch index and related impact measures
Egghe, L. (2010) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2010.1440440109 · Cited by 252
Tijssen, R., Visser, M. S., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1016082432660 · Cited by 251
Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Smrekar, D. D., Pušnik, M., & Južnič, P. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8 · Cited by 242
Franceschet, M. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2 · Cited by 236
Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5 · Cited by 234
Self-citationA modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts
Schreiber, M. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001 · Cited by 233
A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555159502100104 · Cited by 232
Moed, H., & van Leeuwen, T. V. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381186a0 · Cited by 232
Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields
Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x · Cited by 232
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7 · Cited by 229
The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web
Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 · Cited by 227
Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009
Engels, T., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2 · Cited by 225
Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information's journal impact factors
Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199507)46:6 · Cited by 223
A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators
Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3 · Cited by 220
Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2 · Cited by 219
The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach
Anegón, F. D. M., Guerrero‐Bote, V. P., Bornmann, L., & Moed, H. F. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1046-0 · Cited by 212
van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1024141819302 · Cited by 207
How are new citation‐based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?
Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21024 · Cited by 203
Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus
López-Illescas, C., Anegón, F. D. M., & Moed, H. F. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001 · Cited by 201
Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0 · Cited by 198
The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators
Vinkler, P. (2010) · Chandos Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1533/9781780630250 · Cited by 195
Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century
Costas, R., & Wouters, P. F. (2012) · Cited by 195
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. P. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0098-9 · Cited by 194
Collective credit allocation in science
Shen, H., & Barabási, A.-Ĺ. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1401992111 · Cited by 193
Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20885 · Cited by 193
Some Modifications to the SNIP Journal Impact Indicator
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011 · Cited by 191
Self-citationAn empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing
Waltman, L. (2012) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008 · Cited by 187
Self-citationGlänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000006881.30700.ea · Cited by 184
Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor
Zitt, M., & Small, H. G. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20880 · Cited by 184
Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0218-y · Cited by 182
The h-index and self-citations
Engqvist, L., & Frommen, J. G. (2008) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.009 · Cited by 180
Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index
Schreiber, M. (2007) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/78/30002 · Cited by 175
Hagen, N. T. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004021 · Cited by 173
Tobias Opthof, A., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003 · Cited by 173
Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents
Loet Leydesdorff, A., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Tobias Opthof, A. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21534 · Cited by 170
The Eigenfactor MetricsTM: A Network Approach to Assessing Scholarly Journals
West, J. D., Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/0710236 · Cited by 169
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. A. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x · Cited by 169
The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011
Bornmann, L., Anegón, F. D. M., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2012) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006 · Cited by 165
Loet Leydesdorff, A., & Bornmann, L. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21609 · Cited by 164
Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis
Lisée, C., Larivière, V., & Archambault, É. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20888 · Cited by 164
Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact
Adams, J. R. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0228-9 · Cited by 163
Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21371 · Cited by 160
Journal Evaluation: Technical and Practical Issues
Rousseau, R. (2002) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · Cited by 158
Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field
Walters, W. H. (2006) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006 · Cited by 157
Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts
Jacso, P. (2006) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520610675816 · Cited by 156
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4 · Cited by 155
Self-citationBornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.009 · Cited by 154
To share the fame in a fair way, h m modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts
Schreiber, M. (2008) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201 · Cited by 154
A Systematic Analysis of Duplicate Records in Scopus
Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002 · Cited by 154
A Systematic Empirical Comparison of Different Approaches for Normalizing Citation Impact Indicators
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.002 · Cited by 153
Self-citationThe skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates
Albarrán, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuño-Ortı́n, I., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0407-9 · Cited by 151
Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators
Schubert, A. P., & Braun, T. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129597 · Cited by 150
González‐Albo, B., & Bordons, M. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.011 · Cited by 150
Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods
Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7 · Cited by 148
Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar
Orduña‐Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín‐Martín, A., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 · Cited by 147
Garfield and the impact factor
Bensman, S. J. (2007) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410110 · Cited by 145
Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index
Moed, H. F. (2002) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1014812810602 · Cited by 144
Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar
Jacsó, P. (2010) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684521011024191 · Cited by 143
A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y · Cited by 141
A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication
Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Schlemmer, B. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000013299.38210.74 · Cited by 138
Mathematical theory of the h‐ and g‐index in case of fractional counting of authorship
Egghe, L. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20845 · Cited by 137
Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T., & Sivertsen, G. (2012) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019 · Cited by 134
The distribution of references across texts: Some implications for citation analysis
Ding, Y., Liu, X., Guo, C., & Cronin, B. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.003 · Cited by 133
Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices
Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2174-9 · Cited by 132
On the calculation of percentile‐based bibliometric indicators
Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22775 · Cited by 130
Self-citationLeydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23408 · Cited by 129
Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index
Stallings, J. D., Vance, E. A., Yang, J., Vannier, M. W., Liang, J., Pang, L., Dai, L. Y., Ye, I. B., & Wang, G. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1220184110 · Cited by 127
Conferences versus journals in computer science
Vrettas, G., & Sanderson, M. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23349 · Cited by 127
On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators
Waltman, L. R., & Schreiber, M. (2012) · Leiden Repository (Leiden University) · Cited by 126
Self-citationAksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002 · Cited by 125
Hagen, N. T. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4 · Cited by 125
Bornmann, L. (2014) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu002 · Cited by 124
Rank‐normalized impact factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories
Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2004) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.1450410159 · Cited by 123
Loet Leydesdorff, A., & Bornmann, L. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21450 · Cited by 123
The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018529.58334.eb · Cited by 122
The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus
Franceschini, F., Maisano, D. A., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006 · Cited by 121
Ruiz‐Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010 · Cited by 114
Self-citationSivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3 · Cited by 114
The h‐index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator
Norris, M. W., & Oppenheim, C. (2010) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220411011066790 · Cited by 114
What is the best database for computer science journal articles?
Cavacini, A. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1506-1 · Cited by 112
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.06.004 · Cited by 108
Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff
van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.008 · Cited by 108
Self-citationEminence of scientists in the light of the h -index and other scientometric indicators
Vinkler, P. (2007) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551506072165 · Cited by 108
van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0382-1 · Cited by 105
Davis, P. M. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20943 · Cited by 105
What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines
Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.010 · Cited by 103
A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors
Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007175 · Cited by 102
García‐Pérez, M. A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21372 · Cited by 101
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. P., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02458488 · Cited by 101
Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies
Gauffriau, M., & Larsen, P. O. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0239-6 · Cited by 101
An exploratory study of Google Scholar
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710841784 · Cited by 101
Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods
Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2008) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1934-2 · Cited by 101
Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., Schubert, A. P., & Debackere, K. (2008) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5 · Cited by 100
Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001 · Cited by 100
Proceedings of the 17th International conference on science and technology indicators
Larivière, V. (2012) · Cited by 100
Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2 · Cited by 99
The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators
Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018535.99885.e9 · Cited by 98
Universality of scholarly impact metricsPreprint
Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013) · Cited by 97
Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research
Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1800-2 · Cited by 95
Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. P. (1988) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555158801400208 · Cited by 94
Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in web of science and scopus
Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008 · Cited by 93
Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact
Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1999) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02459613 · Cited by 93
Rescaling citations of publications in physics
Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2011) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.83.046116 · Cited by 92
The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles
Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23367 · Cited by 91
Universality of scholarly impact metrics
Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.002 · Cited by 91
Opportunities for and limitations of the B ook C itation I ndex
Gorraiz, J. I., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22875 · Cited by 90
Sombatsompop, N., Markpin, T., & Premkamolnetr, N. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000027794.98854.f6 · Cited by 90
A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact
Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. A. (2010) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2010.09.005 · Cited by 88
Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033833 · Cited by 88
Development and application of journal impact measures in the Dutch science system
van Leeuwen, T. N., & Moed, H. F. (2002) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1014808709694 · Cited by 86
A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication
Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Schlemmer, B. (2003) · Lirias · Cited by 85
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2012) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.003 · Cited by 85
Franceschet, M. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.001 · Cited by 83
Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament
Antkare, I. (2010) · Cited by 83
Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis
Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A. P., & Thijs, B. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0124-y · Cited by 83
Wildgaard, L. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4 · Cited by 81
Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences
Mikki, S. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6 · Cited by 80
Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0200-1 · Cited by 80
Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.09.002 · Cited by 79
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-citation
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
