Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Citation time window choice for research impact...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. / Wang, Jian.
In: Scientometrics, Vol. 94, No. 3, 31.03.2013, p. 851-872.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Wang, J 2013, 'Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation', Scientometrics, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 851-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9

APA

Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9

Vancouver

Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics. 2013 Mar 31;94(3):851-872. Epub 2012 May 26. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9

Author

Wang, Jian. / Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. In: Scientometrics. 2013 ; Vol. 94, No. 3. pp. 851-872.

Bibtex

@article{895eb74ced9940ec831b5e5f1f256949,
title = "Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation",
abstract = "This paper aims to inform choice of citation time window for research evaluation, by answering three questions: (1) How accurate is it to use citation counts in short time windows to approximate total citations? (2) How does citation ageing vary by research fields, document types, publication months, and total citations? (3) Can field normalization improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows? We investigate the 31-year life time non-self-citation processes of all Thomson Reuters Web of Science journal papers published in 1980. The correlation between non-self-citation counts in each time window and total non-self-citations in all 31 years is calculated, and it is lower for more highly cited papers than less highly cited ones. There are significant differences in citation ageing between different research fields, document types, total citation counts, and publication months. However, the within group differences are more striking; many papers in the slowest ageing field may still age faster than many papers in the fastest ageing field. Furthermore, field normalization cannot improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows. Implications and recommendations for choosing adequate citation time windows are discussed.",
keywords = "Citation ageing, Citation time window, Field normalization, Research evaluation",
author = "Jian Wang",
year = "2013",
month = mar,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "851--872",
journal = "Scientometrics",
issn = "0138-9130",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation

AU - Wang, Jian

PY - 2013/3/31

Y1 - 2013/3/31

N2 - This paper aims to inform choice of citation time window for research evaluation, by answering three questions: (1) How accurate is it to use citation counts in short time windows to approximate total citations? (2) How does citation ageing vary by research fields, document types, publication months, and total citations? (3) Can field normalization improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows? We investigate the 31-year life time non-self-citation processes of all Thomson Reuters Web of Science journal papers published in 1980. The correlation between non-self-citation counts in each time window and total non-self-citations in all 31 years is calculated, and it is lower for more highly cited papers than less highly cited ones. There are significant differences in citation ageing between different research fields, document types, total citation counts, and publication months. However, the within group differences are more striking; many papers in the slowest ageing field may still age faster than many papers in the fastest ageing field. Furthermore, field normalization cannot improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows. Implications and recommendations for choosing adequate citation time windows are discussed.

AB - This paper aims to inform choice of citation time window for research evaluation, by answering three questions: (1) How accurate is it to use citation counts in short time windows to approximate total citations? (2) How does citation ageing vary by research fields, document types, publication months, and total citations? (3) Can field normalization improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows? We investigate the 31-year life time non-self-citation processes of all Thomson Reuters Web of Science journal papers published in 1980. The correlation between non-self-citation counts in each time window and total non-self-citations in all 31 years is calculated, and it is lower for more highly cited papers than less highly cited ones. There are significant differences in citation ageing between different research fields, document types, total citation counts, and publication months. However, the within group differences are more striking; many papers in the slowest ageing field may still age faster than many papers in the fastest ageing field. Furthermore, field normalization cannot improve the accuracy of using short citation time windows. Implications and recommendations for choosing adequate citation time windows are discussed.

KW - Citation ageing

KW - Citation time window

KW - Field normalization

KW - Research evaluation

U2 - 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9

DO - 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84873701982

VL - 94

SP - 851

EP - 872

JO - Scientometrics

JF - Scientometrics

SN - 0138-9130

IS - 3

ER -