Four Pitfalls in Normalizing Citation Indicators: An Investigation of ESI’s Selection of Highly Cited Papers
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes.
“different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [173]
Relatively few studies describe the performance and usefulness of additional products and tools offered by WoS and Scopus owning companies.
“Consequently, relatively few studies describe the performance and usefulness of these tools (e.g., [173,301]).”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [173]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Hu, Z., Tian, W., Xu, S., Zhang, C., & Wang, X.
- Affiliations
- Dalian University of Technology (CN)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Xianwen
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1133-1145
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2892507028
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of China (71503031, 71673038)
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (DUT18JC32)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- highly cited papers, Essential Science Indicators, citation impact indicators, journal evaluation, InCites, SciVal
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
