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
Items 201–300 of 786
Indicators of scientific value: An under-recognised ecosystem service of coastal and marine habitats
Friess, D. A., Yando, E. S., Wong, L.-W., & Bhatia, N. (2020) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106255 · Cited by 38
Runaway events dominate the heavy tail of citation distributions
Golosovsky, M., & Solomon, S. (2012) · The European Physical Journal Special Topics · doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01576-4 · Cited by 38
Cancino, C. A., Amirbagheri, K., Merigó, J. M., & Dessouky, Y. (2019) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106015 · Cited by 38
Nieder, C., Andratschke, N. H., & Grosu, A. (2013) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 37
On the categorization of scientific citation profiles in computer science
Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2015) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2701412 · Cited by 38
Citation success over time: theory or empirics?
Johnston, D. W., Piatti, M., & Torgler, B. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0910-7 · Cited by 37
Ping, Z., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.010 · 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
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21076 · Cited by 37
A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and InnovationsPreprint
Dong, Y., Ma, H., Shen, Z., & Wang, K. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.05150 · Cited by 44
Thelwall, M. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.014 · Cited by 36
Compressing multiple scales of impact detection by Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy
Comins, J. A., & Hussey, T. W. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.03.003 · Cited by 36
Network-based statistical comparison of citation topology of bibliographic databases
Šubelj, L., Fiala, D., & Bajec, M. (2014) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep06496 · Cited by 36
Science and Facebook: The same popularity law!
Néda, Z., Varga, L., & Bíró, T. S. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179656 · Cited by 36
Zhang, B., & Wang, X. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2464-1 · Cited by 36
Coccia, M., & Roshani, S. (2024) · Journal of Data and Information Science · doi:10.2478/jdis-2024-0005 · Cited by 35
Higham, K., Governale, M., Jaffe, A. B., & Zülicke, U. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.004 · Cited by 35
Ideas with impact: How connectivity shapes idea diffusion
Deichmann, D., Möser, C., Birkholz, J. M., Nerghes, A., Groenewegen, P., & Wang, S. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103881 · Cited by 35
Sticker Shock and Looming Tsunami
Baveye, P. C. (2009) · Journal of Scholarly Publishing · doi:10.3138/jsp.41.2.191 · Cited by 35
Loet Leydesdorff, A., Ping, Z., & Bornmann, L. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22765 · Cited by 34
Aggregating productivity indices for ranking researchers across multiple areas
Lima, H., Silva, T. H., Moro, M. M., Santos, R. L. T., Meira, W., & Laender, A. H. F. (2013) · ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1145/2467696.2467715 · Cited by 34
Teamwork and Individual Productivity
Flores-Szwagrzak, K., & Treibich, R. (2020) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3305 · Cited by 34
Citation Success Index − An Intuitive Pair-Wise Journal Comparison Metric
Milojević, S., Radicchi, F., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.006 · Cited by 33
Self-citationEvaluating the impact of interdisciplinary research: A multilayer network approach
Omodei, E., Domenico, M. D., & Arenas, À. (2016) · Network Science · doi:10.1017/nws.2016.15 · Cited by 33
Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data?
Thelwall, M. A. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.03.001 · Cited by 33
Quantifying perceived impact of scientific publications
Radicchi, F., Weissman, A., & Bollen, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.010 · Cited by 33
Self-citationWhat is the dimension of citation space?
Clough, J. R., & Evans, T. (2015) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2015.12.053 · Cited by 33
Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology
Malesios, C., & Psarakis, S. (2012) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9785-1 · Cited by 32
Field‐normalized impact factors ( IFs ): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs
Loet Leydesdorff, A., Radicchi, F., Bornmann, L., Castellano, C., & de Nooy, W. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22911 · Cited by 32
Self-citationWhich Factors Affect Citation Rates in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature?
Cheng, K. L., Dodson, T. B., Egbert, M. A., & Susarla, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.043 · Cited by 32
Clermont, M., Krolak, J., & Tunger, D. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03782-1 · Cited by 35
Assessing impact and quality from local dynamics of citation networks
Roth, C., Wu, J., & Lozano, S. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.005 · Cited by 32
Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21418 · Cited by 32
Castellano, C., & Radicchi, F. (2009) · Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis · doi:10.1007/s00005-009-0014-0 · Cited by 32
Self-citationImpact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why Citation Averages Are Scale Dependent
Antonoyiannakis, M. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.011 · Cited by 31
Abbas, K., Hasan, M. K., Abbasi, A., Mokhtar, U. A., Khan, A., Abdullah, S. N. H. S., Dong, S., Islam, S., Alboaneen, D., & Ahmed, F. R. A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3290906 · Cited by 35
In Search of Behavioral Opportunities From Misattributions of Luck
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Liu, C.-W. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0239 · Cited by 26
Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE
Petersen, A. M. (2019) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.100974 · Cited by 31
Prediction methods and applications in the science of science: A survey
Hou, J., Pan, H., Guo, T., Lee, I., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2019) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2019.100197 · Cited by 31
The Critical Issues of Pollutant Biodegradation for Bioremediation Not Being Addressed
Gu, J. (2023) · Applied Environmental Biotechnology · doi:10.26789/aeb.2023.01.007 · Cited by 31
Crespo, J. A., Herranz, N., Li, Y., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23006 · Cited by 31
Thelwall, M. A., & Sud, P. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.007 · Cited by 31
Dienes, K. R. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.003 · Cited by 31
Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top FivePreprint
Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3258226 · Cited by 31
The disruption index is biased by citation inflation
Petersen, A. M., Arroyave, F. J., & Fabio Pammolli, A. (2024) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00333 · Cited by 36
Chen, C., & Song, M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_4 · Cited by 30
Characterizing references from different disciplines: A perspective of citation content analysis
Zhang, C., Liu, L., & Wang, Y. Z. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101134 · Cited by 30
Efficiency of European Universities: A Comparison of Peers
Herberholz, L., & Wigger, B. U. (2020) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104314 · Cited by 30
Yu, X., Szymanski, B. K., & Jia, T. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101193 · Cited by 34
Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline
Smolinsky, L., & Lercher, A. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0647-3 · Cited by 32
Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices
Życzkowski, K. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0208-6 · Cited by 30
The effects of data quality on the analysis of corporate board interlock networks
Garcia‐Bernardo, J., & Takes, F. W. (2017) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2017.10.005 · Cited by 33
Bibliometric indicators of young authors in astrophysics: Can later stars be predicted?
Havemann, F., & Larsen, B. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1476-3 · Cited by 30
Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations
Vinkler, P. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21600 · Cited by 29
A comparison of the Web of Science and publication-level classification systems of science
Perianes‐Rodríguez, A., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.007 · Cited by 29
Science behind AI: the evolution of trend, mobility, and collaboration
Yuan, S., Shao, Z., Wei, X., Tang, J., Hall, W., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03423-7 · Cited by 34
Many-Citednesss: Citations Measure More than Just Scientific Impact
D’Ippoliti, C. (2017) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/joes.12416 · Cited by 32
Yu, D., & Pan, T. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101136 · Cited by 29
Can we predict ESI highly cited publications?
Wang, F., Fan, Y., Zeng, A., & Di, Z. (2018) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2965-6 · Cited by 29
Wainer, J., & Vieira, P. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0969-9 · Cited by 28
Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network
Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N., & Mariani, M. S. (2017) · reroDoc Digital Library · doi:10.7892/boris.108621 · Cited by 28
Meta-validation of bipartite network projections
Cimini, G., Carra, A., Didomenicantonio, L., & Zaccaria, A. (2022) · Communications Physics · doi:10.1038/s42005-022-00856-9 · Cited by 33
An assessment of academic productivity in pediatric neurosurgery
Kalra, R. R., & Kestle, J. R. W. (2013) · Journal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · doi:10.3171/2013.6.peds13112 · Cited by 28
Ferrer-Sapena, A., Sánchez-Pérez, E. A., Peset, F., González, L.-M., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv041 · Cited by 27
Petersen, A. M., Arroyave, F. J., & Fabio Pammolli, A. (2024) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101605 · Cited by 34
Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution
Petersen, A. M., Majeti, D., Kwon, K.-A., Ahmed, M. E., & Pavlidis, I. T. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat4211 · Cited by 27
The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics
Wang, Y., Li, N., Zhang, B., Huang, Q., Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04635-3 · Cited by 31
Sáez‐Ortuño, L., Forgas‐Coll, S., Huertas-García, R., & Sánchez, J. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113702 · Cited by 27
Assessing the accuracy of the h ‐ and g ‐indexes for measuring researchers' productivity
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22828 · Cited by 27
Survey of Publications and the H-index in Academic Emergency Medicine Professors
Babineau, M. R., Fischer, C., Volz, K. A., & Sánchez, L. D. (2014) · Western Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.5811/westjem.2013.9.18103 · Cited by 27
The Normalization of Citation Counts Based on Classification Systems
Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Barth, A. (2013) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications1020078 · Cited by 27
The productivity of top researchers: a semi-nonparametric approach
Cortés, L. M., Mora‐Valencia, A., & Perote, J. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2072-5 · Cited by 27
Contributorship in scientific collaborations: The perspective of contribution-based byline orders
Lu, C., Zhang, C., Xiao, C., & Ding, Y. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102944 · Cited by 27
Kurtz, M. J., & Henneken, E. A. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23689 · Cited by 29
Di, L., Cataldi, M., & Schifanella, C. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0762-1 · Cited by 26
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.015 · Cited by 26
The suitability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1026-4 · Cited by 26
Ruocco, G., Daraio, C. C., Folli, V., & Leonetti, M. (2017) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.64 · Cited by 27
Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and selection of Nobel laureates
Gallotti, R., & Domenico, M. D. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53657-6 · Cited by 28
Empirical Patterns in Google Scholar Citation CountsPreprint
Breuer, P., & Bowen, J. P. (2016) · Cited by 26
The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications
Crespo, J. A., Ortuño-Ortı́n, I., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049156 · Cited by 25
Patel, V., Panzarasa, P., Ashrafian, H., Evans, T., Kirresh, A. Z., Sevdalis, N., Darzi, A. W., & Athanasiou, T. (2019) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/0141076819851666 · Cited by 25
Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science
Yang, A. J., Gong, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, C., & Deng, S. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04889-x · Cited by 29
Stationarity of the inter-event power-law distributions
Gandica, Y., Carvalho, J., dos Aidos, F. S., Lambiotte, R., & Carletti, T. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174509 · Cited by 25
Distribution of shortest path lengths in a class of node duplication network models
Steinbock, C., Biham, O., & Katzav, E. (2017) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.96.032301 · Cited by 25
Bibliographic characteristics of the research output of pediatric anesthesiologists in Canada
O’Leary, J. D., & Crawford, M. W. (2010) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-010-9292-6 · Cited by 25
The large‐scale structure of journal citation networks
Franceschet, M. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22608 · Cited by 25
Trapp, J. (2016) · Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13246-016-0478-2 · Cited by 24
Buela Casal, G., Olivas-Ávila, J. A., Musi Lechuga, B., & Zych, I. (2011) · Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Huelva (Universidad de Huelva) · Cited by 24
Geography of science: Competitiveness and inequality
Patelli, A., Napolitano, L., Cimini, G., & Gabrielli, A. (2022) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101357 · Cited by 24
Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works
Wang, R., Zhou, Y., & Zeng, A. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04631-7 · Cited by 24
Core-periphery structure in networks: A statistical exposition
Yanchenko, E., & Sengupta, S. (2023) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/23-ss141 · Cited by 24
Measuring academic productivity: don’t drop your ‘h’s!*
Pandit, J. J. (2011) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06882.x · Cited by 24
Within- and between-department variability in individual productivity: the case of economics
Perianes‐Rodríguez, A., & Ruiz‐Castillo, J. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1449-6 · Cited by 24
A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding
Yang, J., Vannier, M. W., Fang, W., Deng, Y., Ou, F., Bennett, J., Liu, Y., & Wang, G. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.006 · Cited by 24
A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator
Schreiber, M. (2013) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.006 · Cited by 24
Are Article Influence Scores Comparable across Scientific Fields?
Arendt, J. (2010) · Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship · doi:10.29173/istl2511 · Cited by 24
Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators
Medo, M., & Cimini, G. (2016) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.94.032312 · Cited by 23
Haghani, M., Abbasi, A., Zwack, C. C., Shahhoseini, Z., & Haslam, N. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271998 · Cited by 25
Enhancing the h index for the objective assessment of healthcare researcher performance and impact
Patel, V., Ashrafian, H., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Makanjuola, J. K., Skapinakis, P., Darzi, A. W., & Athanasiou, T. (2013) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2012.120253 · Cited by 23
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
