Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/emerald-publishing/quantitative-deconstruction-of-citation-impact-indicators-waxing-field-eLELXJFtdr
References (11)
-
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel (2005)
Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publicationsScientometrics, 5
-
A.J. Nederhof, T.N. Van Leeuwen, M.S. Visser, L.J. Van der Wurff
Bibliometric profiles of academic Veterinary and Animal Sciences research in The Netherlands, 1989‐1998 -
L. Leydesdorff (2003)
Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences?J. Documentation, 59
-
A. Nederhof, E. Wijk (1999)
Profiling institutes: Identifying high research performance and social relevance in the social and behavioral sciencesScientometrics, 44
-
J. Adair, N. Vohra (2003)
The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations. Psychology's unique response to a crisis.The American psychologist, 58 1
-
A. Raan (1996)
Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercisesScientometrics, 36
-
H. Moed, R. Bruin, T. Leeuwen (1995)
New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applicationsScientometrics, 33
-
Science Watch
Twenty years of citation superstars -
P. Ingwersen, Birger Larsen, E. Noyons (2001)
Mapping national research profiles in social science disciplinesJ. Documentation, 57
-
Michel Zitt, S. Ramanana-Rahary, E. Bassecoulard (2003)
Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineationScientometrics, 56
-
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun (1989)
Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981–1985Scientometrics, 16
- Publisher
- Emerald Publishing
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2004 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
- ISSN
- 0022-0418
- DOI
- 10.1108/00220410410568142
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world‐wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five‐year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
Journal
Journal of Documentation – Emerald Publishing
Published: Dec 1, 2004
Keywords: Serials; User studies; Statistical analysis