The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 7 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact
Open accessAbstract
We study the distributions of citations received by a single publication within several disciplines, spanning broad areas of science. We show that the probability that an article is cited c times has large variations between different disciplines, but all distributions are rescaled on a universal curve when the relative indicator c f = c / c 0 is considered, where c 0 is the average number of citations per article for the discipline. In addition we show that the same universal behavior occurs when citation distributions of articles published in the same field, but in different years, are compared. These findings provide a strong validation of c f as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines and years. Based on this indicator, we introduce a generalization of the h index suitable for comparing scientists working in different fields.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper shows that citation distributions across scientific disciplines and publication years collapse onto a universal curve when citations are rescaled by the field-year average \(c_0\), making \(c_f=c/c_0\) an unbiased relative indicator. It introduces a generalized h-index \(h_f\) based on \(c_f\) and normalized publication rates.
Key findings
- Bare citation distributions vary strongly by discipline: a publication with 100 citations is approximately 50 times more common in Developmental Biology than in Engineering, Aerospace. After rescaling by \(c_0\), all distributions collapse onto a universal curve fitted by a lognormal with \(\sigma^2=1.3\).
- Universality also holds across years within the same field: for Hematology, Neuroimaging, and Physics, Nuclear, articles from 1990, 1999, and 2004 show the same rescaled distribution despite \(c_0\) growing with elapsed time.
- Ranking articles by \(c_f\) reduces field bias: for the top \(z=20\%\), the standard deviation of discipline bin heights is \(\sigma_z=1.15\%\) for \(c_f\)-based ranking versus \(12.37\%\) for bare \(c\), compared with the theoretical unbiased value \(\sigma_z=1.09\%\).
- The generalized h-index \(h_f\) orders articles by \(c_f\) and uses reduced rank \(r/N_0\); an example with \(c_f\) values 4.1, 2.8, 2.2, 1.6, 0.8, 0.4 and \(N_0=2.0\) gives \(h_f=1.5\). Author publication counts also rescale, fitted by a power law with exponent \(-3.5(5)\).
Methods
- Data come from Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science; journals are divided into 172 JCR categories, and only records classified as “article” and “letter” are considered. Citations are counted as the total number of times an article appears as a reference in a more recent published article.
- For each discipline and year, the average citations per article \(c_0\) is computed; distributions \(P(c,c_0)\) are rescaled as \(c_0P(c,c_0)\) versus \(c_f=c/c_0\). Curves are fitted with a lognormal constrained by \(\sigma^2=-2\mu\) because the expected value of \(c_f\) is 1, using exponentially growing bins.
- Ranking analysis pools disciplines, ranks articles by \(c\) and by \(c_f\), and compares the percentage of each discipline in the top \(z\%\) against an unbiased-ranking expectation. The generalized h-index is defined using \(c_f\) and \(r/N_0\).
Limitations
- Stated: uncited articles are neglected, though the authors verified their inclusion only produces a small shift in \(c_0\); “Multidisciplinary sciences” does not fit perfectly because its citation distribution is a convolution of single disciplines, but restricting to Nature, Science, and PNAS fits well.
- Stated: the analysis addresses single publications, not individuals or research groups, and other biases such as number of authors are left for future work; the origin of the universality is also not understood.
- Evident from the text: JCR categories are not mutually exclusive, and the generalized h-index’s practical application is deferred to a forthcoming publication.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 7 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example a publication with 100 citations is approximately 50 times more common in 'Developmental Biology' than in 'Engineering, Aerospace'.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fitting a single curve for all categories, a lognormal distribution with σ 2 = 1 . 3 is found, that is reported in Figure 2.”
- Also stated in: § II. VARIABILITY OF CITATION STATISTICS IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES · p. 2 · plain
“The dashed line is a lognormal fit with σ 2 = 1 . 3.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § II. VARIABILITY OF CITATION STATISTICS IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Values of χ 2 per degree of freedom, also reported in Table I, indicate that the fit is good.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition we show that the same universal behavior occurs when citation distributions of articles published in the same field, but in different years, are compared.”
- Also stated in: § III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVE INDICATOR c f · p. 4 · plain
“The value of c 0 obviously grows as older publications are considered, but the rescaled distribution remains conspicuously the same.”
- Also stated in: § IV. A GENERALIZED H-INDEX · p. 5 · plain
“the universal scaling observed over different disciplines naturally holds also for articles published in different periods of time.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVE INDICATOR c f · p. 4 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Fig. 5 shows, such a quantity also depends on the discipline considered: in some disciplines the average number of articles published by an author in a year is much larger than in others.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the universal curve is fitted reasonably well over almost two decades by a power-law behavior P ( N,N 0 ) ≈ ( N/N 0 ) -δ with δ = 3 . 5(5).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“In agreement with the findings of Ref. [11] c 0 shows very little correlation with the overall size of the field, as measured by the total number of articles.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Althouse BM, West JD, Bergstrom T, Bergstrom CT (2008) Differences in Impact Factor Across Fields and Over Time. arxiv 0804.3116 . source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The category 'Multidisciplinary sciences' does not fit perfectly into the universal picture found for other categories, because the distribution of the number of citations is a convolution of the distributions corresponding to the single disciplines represented in the journals.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if one restricts only to the three most important multidisciplinary journals ( Nature , Science , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA ) also this category fits very well into the global universal picture.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all distributions are rescaled on a universal curve when the relative indicator c f = c/c 0 is considered, where c 0 is the average number of citations per article for the discipline.”
- Also stated in: § III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVE INDICATOR c f · p. 2 · boosted
“Fig. 2 shows that this procedure leads to a very good collapse of all curves for different values of c 0 onto a single shape.”
- Also stated in: § III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVE INDICATOR c f · p. 2 · boosted
“This allows to conclude that, rescaling the distribution of citations for publications in a scientific discipline by their average number, a universal curve is found, independent of the specific discipline.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVE INDICATOR c f · p. 2 · boosted
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, for z = 20%, σ z = 1 . 15% for c f -based ranking, while σ z = 12 . 37% if c is used, as opposed to the value σ z = 1 . 09% in the hypothesis of unbiased ranking.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Under an unbiased ranking, articles of the various disciplines are scattered uniformly along the rank axis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All fitted values of σ 2 , reported in Table I, are compatible within two standard deviations, except for one (Anesthesiology) that is in any case within three standard deviations of all the others.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the ranking is performed according to c f = c/c 0 we find (Table II) a very good agreement with the hypothesis that the ranking is unbiased, while strong evidence that the ranking is biased is found when c is used.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Under an unbiased ranking, articles of the various disciplines are scattered uniformly along the rank axis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The value of c 0 obviously grows as older publications are considered, but the rescaled distribution remains conspicuously the same.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is known that different temporal patterns of citations exist, with some articles starting soon to receive citations, while others ('sleeping beauties') go unnoticed for a long time, after which they are recognized as seminal and begin to attract a large number of citations [26, 27].”
What the sources say
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Under an unbiased ranking, articles of the various disciplines are scattered uniformly along the rank axis.
“assuming that articles of the various disciplines are scattered uniformly along the rank axis, one would expect the average bin height in Fig. 3 to be z % with a standard deviation”
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
“The number of citations a paper receives is the most commonly used measure of scienti fi c impact.”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Radicchi, Fortunato, & Castellano, 2008
In the citing paper
“Variability in citation practices across disciplines, for instance, is a well-recognized problem which prevents direct comparability of citation counts across fi elds (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008), unless appropriate corrective methods are applied (Radicchi et al., 2008).”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Radicchi et al., 2008
In the citing paper
“Recent work has improved our theoretical understanding of citation dynamics [27–29].”
From Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level (2016) · cites this paper as [28]
Citations
Cites
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
Theory and practise of the g-index
Egghe, L. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 · Cited by 2,354
Citation Indexing-Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities
Goodwin, J., & Garfield, E. (1980) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3104125 · Cited by 1,648
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
How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution
Redner, S. (1998) · The European Physical Journal B · doi:10.1007/s100510050359 · Cited by 1,509
The scientific impact of nations
King, D. A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/430311a · Cited by 1,245
Does the h index have predictive power?
Hirsch, J. E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0707962104 · Cited by 980
van Raan, A. F. J. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018543.82441.f1 · Cited by 579
Moed, H. F., Bruin, R. E. D., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017338 · Cited by 502
Schubert, A. P., & Braun, T. (1986) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017249 · Cited by 450
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
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
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-citationA review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines
Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A.-Ĺ. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1914221117 · Cited by 978
Broido, A. D., & Clauset, A. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08746-5 · Cited by 875
Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact
Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1237825 · Cited by 753
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
Analyzing and modeling real-world phenomena with complex networks: a survey of applications
Costa, L. D. F., Oliveira, O. N., Travieso, G., Rodrigues, F. A., Villas-Boas, P. R., Antiqueira, L., Viana, M. P., & Rocha, L. E. C. (2011) · Advances In Physics · doi:10.1080/00018732.2011.572452 · Cited by 839
Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact
Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-Ĺ. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf5239 · Cited by 639
The Matthew effect in empirical data
Perc, M. (2014) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0378 · Cited by 586
The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration
AlShebli, B., Rahwan, T., & Woon, W. L. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8 · Cited by 505
Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 · Cited by 500
Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation
Wang, J. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9 · Cited by 427
Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five
Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20191574 · Cited by 423
Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science
Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F., & Flammini, A. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1424329112 · Cited by 430
Self-citationHirsch, J. E. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9 · Cited by 411
The 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
Latora, V., Nicosia, V., & Russo, G. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316216002 · Cited by 377
Bibliometric Analysis for Medical Research
Manoj Kumar, L., George, R. J., & Anisha, P. (2022) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1177/02537176221103617 · Cited by 331
Modeling and Predicting Popularity Dynamics via Reinforced Poisson Processes
Shen, H., Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-Ĺ. (2014) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8739 · Cited by 319
Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., Markines, B., & Vespignani, A. (2009) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.80.056103 · Cited by 311
Self-citationReputation and impact in academic careers
Petersen, A. M., Fortunato, S., Pan, R. K., Kaski, K. K., Penner, O., Rungi, A., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, E., & Fabio Pammolli, A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1323111111 · Cited by 318
Self-citationWorld citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep00902 · Cited by 304
Self-citationGrounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research1
Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M. C., Yetton, P., & Krcmar, H. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.02 · Cited by 314
The 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
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
Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review
Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. D. (2013) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.005 · Cited by 235
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
Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity
Petersen, A. M., Jung, W.-S., Yang, J.-S., & Stanley, H. E. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1016733108 · Cited by 228
Menichetti, G., Remondini, D., Panzarasa, P., Mondragón, R. J., & Bianconi, G. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097857 · Cited by 229
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
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
Power laws in citation distributions: evidence from Scopus
Brzezinski, M. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1524-z · Cited by 196
Characterizing and Modeling Citation Dynamics
Eom, Y.-H., & Fortunato, S. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024926 · Cited by 192
Self-citationPersistence and uncertainty in the academic career
Petersen, A. M., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H. E., & Pammolli, F. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1121429109 · Cited by 188
Loet Leydesdorff, A., & Milojević, S. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.85030-8 · Cited by 183
Career on the Move: Geography, Stratification and Scientific Impact
Deville, P., Wang, D., Sinatra, R., Song, C., Blondel, V. D., & Barabási, A.-Ĺ. (2014) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep04770 · Cited by 182
Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002 · Cited by 181
Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers
Liu, L., Wang, Y., Sinatra, R., Giles, C. L., Song, C., & Wang, D. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0315-8 · Cited by 189
Havlin, S., Kenett, D. Y., Ben‐Jacob, E., Armin Bunde, A., Reuven Cohen, C., Hermann, H., Kantelhardt, J. W., Kertész, J., Kirkpatrick, S., Kurths, J., et al. (2012) · The European Physical Journal Special Topics · doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01695-x · Cited by 181
Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks
Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2014) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-014-0009-x · Cited by 174
Tobias Opthof, A., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003 · Cited by 173
Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution
Jia, T., Wang, D., & Szymanski, B. K. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0078 · Cited by 172
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
Performance Analysis of Complex Networks and Systems
Mieghem, P. V. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415874 · Cited by 166
Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers
Petersen, A. M. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1501444112 · Cited by 162
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4 · Cited by 155
Who Is the Best Player Ever? A Complex Network Analysis of the History of Professional Tennis
Radicchi, F. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017249 · Cited by 164
Self-citationA 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
Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis
Tian, Y., Yu, G., Li, P., & Wang, L. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1279-6 · Cited by 152
The 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
The universal decay of collective memory and attention
Candia, C., Jara-Figueroa, C. I., Rodríguez‐Sickert, C., Barabási, A.-Ĺ., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0474-5 · Cited by 160
Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods
Thelwall, M. A., & Wilson, P. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.011 · Cited by 142
On the Predictability of Future Impact in Science
Penner, O., Pan, R. K., Petersen, A. M., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep03052 · Cited by 140
Self-citationEarly-career setback and future career impact
Wang, Y., Jones, B. F., & Wang, D. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12189-3 · Cited by 142
SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research
Lin, Z., Yin, Y., Liu, L., & Wang, D. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02198-9 · Cited by 165
Modeling a century of citation distributions
Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.010 · Cited by 140
Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23408 · Cited by 129
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0406-x · Cited by 129
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
The chaperone effect in scientific publishing
Sekara, V., Deville, P., Ahnert, S. E., Barabási, A.-Ĺ., Sinatra, R., & Lehmann, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1800471115 · Cited by 125
Public use and public funding of science
Yin, Y., Dong, Y., Wang, K., Wang, D., & Jones, B. F. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5 · Cited by 123
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
Gao, J. G., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, T. (2019) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.05.002 · Cited by 122
Inheritance Patterns in Citation Networks Reveal Scientific Memes
Kuhn, T., Perc, M., & Helbing, D. (2014) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.4.041036 · Cited by 117
Ruiz‐Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010 · Cited by 114
The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.12.002 · Cited by 114
Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline
Petersen, A. M., Wang, F. Z., & Stanley, E. (2010) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.81.036114 · Cited by 109
Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011) · Journal of Social Work Education · doi:10.5175/jswe.2011.201000024 · Cited by 105
Time series citation data: the Nobel Prize in economics
Bjork, S., Offer, A., & Söderberg, G. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0989-5 · Cited by 103
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
Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.004 · Cited by 102
The skewness of scientific productivity
Ruiz‐Castillo, J., & Costas, R. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.006 · Cited by 99
Application of the h-Index in Academic Plastic Surgery
Therattil, P. J., Hoppe, I. C., Granick, M. S., & Lee, E. S. (2014) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000382 · 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
Evaluating Journal Quality: Is the H-Index a Better Measure Than Impact Factors?
Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2010) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731510369141 · Cited by 97
Sharma, B., Boet, S., Grantcharov, T., Shin, E., Barrowman, N. J., & Bould, M. D. (2013) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2012.09.006 · Cited by 97
Stringer, M. J., Sales‐Pardo, M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21335 · Cited by 97
Universality of scholarly impact metricsPreprint
Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013) · Cited by 97
Self-citationGender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country
Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w · Cited by 96
Survey of the h index for all of academic neurosurgery: another power-law phenomenon?
Spearman, C. M., Quigley, M. J., Quigley, M. R., & Wilberger, J. E. (2010) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2010.4.jns091842 · Cited by 94
Radicchi, F. (2009) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.80.026118 · Cited by 95
Self-citationBIBLIOMETRIC OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
Merigó, J. M., Rocafort, A., & Aznar, J. P. (2016) · Journal of Business Economics and Management · doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.807868 · Cited by 94
Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Wouters, P. F. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002542 · Cited by 94
Rescaling citations of publications in physics
Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2011) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.83.046116 · Cited by 92
Self-citationUniversality 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
Self-citationHow To Count Citations If You Must
Perry, M., & Reny, P. J. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20140850 · Cited by 91
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
Self-citationDynamical Macroprudential Stress Testing Using Network Theory
Levy-Carciente, S., Kenett, D. Y., Avakian, A., Stanley, E., & Havlin, S. (2015) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.05.008 · Cited by 91
A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations
Dong, Y., Ma, H., Shen, Z., & Wang, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098016 · Cited by 89
Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science
Mosleh, M., Roshani, S., & Coccia, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04300-1 · Cited by 89
Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033833 · Cited by 88
Self-citationHow has healthcare research performance been assessed? A systematic review
Patel, V., Ashrafian, H., Ahmed, K., Arora, S., Jiwan, S., Nicholson, J. K., Darzi, A. W., & Athanasiou, T. (2011) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110005 · Cited by 87
Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact
Mazloumian, A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049246 · Cited by 85
Statistical regularities in the rank-citation profile of scientists
Petersen, A. M., Stanley, E., & Succi, S. (2011) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep00181 · Cited by 88
Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance
Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A., & Latora, V. (2021) · Communications Physics · doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00769-z · Cited by 85
Can Scientific Impact Be Predicted?
Dong, Y., Johnson, R. A., & Chawla, N. V. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2016.2521657 · Cited by 84
Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals
Meyer, M., Waldkirch, R. W., Duscher, I., & Just, A. (2017) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2017.07.001 · 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Scientific Interchange (IT)
- National Research Council (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Castellano, Claudio
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-11-11
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 17268-17272
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2582263
- OpenAlex
- W2151866568
- Semantic Scholar
- 1ead99845d1dc1c0d58e47eda9ba21aa0234878f
- Cited by
- 828
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 48
- FWCI
- 31.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 distribution, scientific impact, h-index, cross-disciplinary comparison, rescaling, citation performance, bibliometric analysis
- MeSH terms
- Models, Theoretical, Selection Bias, Interdisciplinary Communication, Journal Impact Factor
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
