<p>Since the end of the 1980s, citation impact values – especially for evaluative purposes – are increasingly presented as mean normalized citation scores (MNCS) than as bare citation counts or citation rates. In rather popular variants of the MNCS the average MNCS over a publication year is not exactly one due to multiple Web of Science subject categories per paper. We propose a scaling method which introduces slight changes in the MNCS values of each paper but ensures that the average value of all MNCS values equals one.</p
ide differences in publication and citation practices makes impossible the direct comparison of raw ...
Citation metrics are increasingly used to appraise published research. One challenge is whether and ...
This paper studies the impact of differences in citation practices using the model introduced in Cre...
Since the end of the 1980s, citation impact values –especially for evaluative purposes– are increasi...
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested agai...
A possible solution to the problem of aggregating heterogeneous fields in the all-sciences case rel...
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the obse...
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the obse...
generating field-normalized citation scores. While the subject of field-normalization in bibliometri...
In the case of the scientometric evaluation of multi- or interdisciplinary units one risks to compar...
We study the problem of normalizing citation impact indicators for differences in citation practices...
<p> </p><p>For the normalization of citation counts, two different kinds of methods are possible an...
effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed ci...
Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (comb...
<p>Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institu...
ide differences in publication and citation practices makes impossible the direct comparison of raw ...
Citation metrics are increasingly used to appraise published research. One challenge is whether and ...
This paper studies the impact of differences in citation practices using the model introduced in Cre...
Since the end of the 1980s, citation impact values –especially for evaluative purposes– are increasi...
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested agai...
A possible solution to the problem of aggregating heterogeneous fields in the all-sciences case rel...
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the obse...
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the obse...
generating field-normalized citation scores. While the subject of field-normalization in bibliometri...
In the case of the scientometric evaluation of multi- or interdisciplinary units one risks to compar...
We study the problem of normalizing citation impact indicators for differences in citation practices...
<p> </p><p>For the normalization of citation counts, two different kinds of methods are possible an...
effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed ci...
Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (comb...
<p>Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institu...
ide differences in publication and citation practices makes impossible the direct comparison of raw ...
Citation metrics are increasingly used to appraise published research. One challenge is whether and ...
This paper studies the impact of differences in citation practices using the model introduced in Cre...