Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documents
Year: 2011
Type: preprint
Abstract: Using citation analysis, sets of documents can be compared as independent samples; for example, in terms of average citation counts using potentially different reference sets. From this perspective, the size of samples matters only for the identification of significant differences and estimating margins of error. Using the percentile rank approach, differences among citation distributions can be studied non-parametrically and in a single scheme. Comparison among the sets clarifies that the different sizes of samples affect the weighing of the probabilities and therefore the rankings. We distinguish among (1) the normalization of papers against external reference sets, (2) normalization in terms of frequencies relative to the margin-totals of independent versus dependent samples, and (3) the potentially normative definition of percentile rank classes for the evaluation (e.g., top-1% most highly cited, median, etc.). When the sets to be evaluated are considered as subsamples of a single sample, the consequent citation indicator can be negatively correlated to citation indicators used hitherto.
Source: arXiv (Cornell University)
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W27104378