Universality of citation distributions–A validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator c_f = c/c₀ at the micro level using data from chemistry

Abstract

In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator c f as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate c f , the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. c f values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z -scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate zscores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z -scores are better suited than c f values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.

Assessing impact and quality from local dynamics of citation networks

“…By relative citation count we mean that we consider the number of citations received by a paper published in a given year with respect to the mean number of citations that all papers published in the same field have received after an identical period of time [2,5,18]. By temporal ordering of links, we mean that we work, in the broad sense, on arrival times of links connected to a given paper, distinguishing between links originating from a paper (references) and those pointing to a paper (citations), see Fig.…”

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

“…The simplest indicator is the number of times a paper has been cited (the times cited indicator). Since scientific fields (and also subfields) are characterized by different expected citation rates, citation counts across different fields (and also subfields) cannot be directly compared (Bornmann & Daniel, 2009;Bornmann, Mutz, Marx, Schier, & Daniel, 2011).…”

Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods

“…Bornmann and Daniel (2009b) tested the advantage of using z-scores for field standardization. z-scores have been used in psychological testing for many years for standardization of test scores.…”