Relationship between field-normalized indicators calculated with different approaches of field-categorization
Year: 2018
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: Three different approaches of field-categorization are currently (mainly) used for normalizing citation impact without a clear preference for one alternative: (1) journal sets, (2) intellectual assignments, and (3) citation relations. In this study, we compare normalized citation scores, which have been calculated based on the three approaches to build reference sets. We are interested whether they lead to the same, similar, or different scores for the same papers – if the formula of calculating the scores is held constant. This study focusses on chemistry and related sciences, because we have access to a comprehensive dataset from Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS). The results show that normalized scores based on intellectual field assignments are more in agreement with scores based on journal sets than with scores based on citation relations. Thus, one can expect more similar scores based on intellectual assignments and journal sets than on citation relations.
Authors: Robin Haunschild, M. Marx, BLAIR FRENCH, Lutz Bornmann
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2900657288