Cited by 1,416scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting

Open access
Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio, Waltman, Ludo, van Eck, Nees Jan·2016·Journal of Informetrics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • To avoid assigning higher weights to manuscripts with a higher number of authors, a fractional counting method was chosen to build a weighted co-authorship network.

    “To avoid assigning higher weights to manuscripts with a higher number of authors, we chose a fractional counting method to build a weighted co-authorship network (i.e., edge weights are inversely proportional to the number of authors) based on the recom mended methods by Perianes-Rodriguez et al. (2016).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Informetrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
1178-1195
ISSN
1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2486654687
Cited by
1,416
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 170 · 2025: 217 · 2024: 230 · 2023: 224 · 2022: 229 · 2021: 141 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 2
FWCI
32.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte
  • Universiteit Leiden (CAS15/00178)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
bibliometric networks, fractional counting, co-authorship networks, bibliographic coupling, co-citation networks, network construction

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