Abstract
Relative indicators are commonly used to remove biases due to different citation practices in various scientific fields. Here we extend our recent investigation on the viability of the use of relative indicators for comparing article impact in different disciplines. We consider citation distributions for papers published in 14 of the 172 disciplines categorized by the Journal Citation Reports. The distribution of the number of citations received by publications in a certain discipline divided by the average number for the discipline is a universal function. Based on it, we compute the relative number of citations needed to be among the q percent most-cited publications in a discipline. The effect of finite samples is also discussed. The average number of citations is shown to be strongly correlated with the impact factor, but fluctuations are quite large. A similar universal distribution is found (with exceptions) when citation distributions restricted to papers published in a single journal are considered.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- IF:
-
impact factor
- WoS:
-
Web of Science
- Equation:
-
Eq
References
Bornmann L, Daniel H-D (2008) What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc 64: 45-50
David HA, Nagaraja HN (2003) Order Statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69: 131-152
Garfield E (1979) Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology
Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 16569-16572
Hirsch JE (2007) Does the h index have predictive power?. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 19193-19198
Iglesias JE, Pecharroman C (2007) Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73: 303-320
King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316
Kinney AL (2007) National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 17943-17947
Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C (2008) Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 17268-17272
Schubert A, Braun T (1986) Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative-assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9: 281-291
Schubert A, Braun T (1996) Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36: 11-24
Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2008) Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS ONE 3:e1683
Vinkler P (1996) Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 36: 223-236
Vinkler P (2003) Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 58: 687-694
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Castellano, C., Radicchi, F. On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 57, 85–90 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0014-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0014-0