Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact

@article{Radicchi2008UniversalityOC,
  title={Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact},
  author={Filippo Radicchi and Santo Fortunato and Claudio Castellano},
  journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  year={2008},
  volume={105},
  pages={17268 - 17272}
}
We study the distributions of citations received by a single publication within several disciplines, spanning broad areas of science. [] Key Result These findings provide a strong validation of c(f) as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines and years. Based on this indicator, we introduce a generalization of the h index suitable for comparing scientists working in different fields.

Figures and Tables from this paper

On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines

TLDR
The average number of citations is shown to be strongly correlated with the impact factor, but fluctuations are quite large, and a similar universal distribution is found when citation distributions restricted to papers published in a single journal are considered.

Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding

TLDR
It is shown that the near-universal shape of the citation distributions for different disciplines and for different citation years traces its origin to the nearly universal fitness distribution, while deviations from this shape are associated with the discipline-specific citation dynamics of papers.

Universality of Citation Distributions for Academic Institutions and Journals

TLDR
This work studies the distributions of citations to publications from individual academic institutions for a single year to find this feature seems to be universal for a broad selection of institutions irrespective of the average number of citations per article.

A Reverse Engineering Approach to the Suppression of Citation Biases Reveals Universal Properties of Citation Distributions

TLDR
An exhaustive study of the citation patterns of millions of papers is performed, and it is found that a simple transformation of citation counts able to suppress the disproportionate citation counts among scientific domains is derived.

Universality of performance indicators based on citation and reference counts

TLDR
This work demonstrates that comparisons can be made between publications from different disciplines and publication dates, regardless of their citation count and without expensive access to the whole world-wide citation graph.

Statistical regularities in the rank-citation profile of scientists

TLDR
The results demonstrate the utility of the βi scaling parameter in conjunction with hi for quantifying individual publication impact and show that the total number of citations Ci tallied from a scientist's Ni papers scales as .

The Measurement of the Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices across Scientific Fields

TLDR
A novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields is introduced, and an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields is implemented.

Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal

TLDR
A large-scale empirical analysis of journals from every field in Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database suggests that the discrete lognormal distribution is a globally accurate model for the distribution of “eventual impact” of scientific papers published in single-discipline journal in a single year that is removed sufficiently from the present date.

Differences in citation impact across scientific fields

TLDR
A novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields is introduced, and an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in the 22 broad fields distinguished by Thomson Scientific is implemented.

The evaluation of citation distributions

This paper reviews a number of recent contributions that demonstrate that a blend of welfare economics and statistical analysis is useful in the evaluation of the citations received by scientific
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 38 REFERENCES

How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution

Abstract:Numerical data for the distribution of citations are examined for: (i) papers published in 1981 in journals which are catalogued by the Institute for Scientific Information (783,339 papers)

Competition amongst scientists for publication status:Toward a model of scientific publication and citation distributions

  • A. Raan
  • Computer Science
    Scientometrics
  • 2004
TLDR
It is concluded that this distribution of citation sover publications, which is a crucial phenomenon in scientometrics, is not a power law, but amodified Bessel-function.

Competition amongst scientists for publication status:Toward a model of scientific publication and citation distributions

TLDR
It is concluded that this distribution of citation sover publications, which is a crucial phenomenon in scientometrics, is not a power law, but amodified Bessel-function.

Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation

TLDR
The results show that the average citation rankings of articles substantially change with the level of observation, and the instability of impact measures should not be interpreted in terms of lack of robustness but rather as the co-existence of various perspectives each having their own form of legitimacy.

The Skewness of Science

  • P. Seglen
  • Environmental Science
    J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
  • 1992
TLDR
The citational variability between articles in a journal is less (semilog linearity) than in the corresponding field as a whole, suggesting that each journal represents a select, stratified sample of the field.

What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior

TLDR
The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non‐scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite.

Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact

Cross-field comparison ofscientometric indicators1 is severely hindered by the differences in publication and citation habits of science fields. However, relating publication and citation indicators

Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators

TLDR
The Relative Subfield Citedness (Rw) indicator proved to be the most appropriate according to the criteria chosen and increases with the number of citations to the papers and, in contrast to other relative impact indicators, does not decrease if an author chooses to publish most of his papers in journals with large impact factors.

New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications

TLDR
The paper describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of publishing main organizations, appearing in the addresses.