Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse

Ranking national research systems by citation indicators: A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Ranking national research systems by citation indicators : A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. / Aksnes, Dag W.; Schneider, Jesper Wiborg; Gunnarsson, Magnus.

I: Journal of Informetrics, Bind 6, Nr. 1, 01.2012, s. 36-43.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{60bf610ffc4b44e8875895d57a8401ac,
title = "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators: A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods",
abstract = "This paper presents an empirical analysis of two different methodologies for calculating national citation indicators: whole counts and fractionalised counts. The aim of our study is to investigate the effect on relative citation indicators when citations to documents are fractionalised among the authoring countries. We have performed two analyses: a time series analysis of one country and a cross-sectional analysis of 23 countries. The results show that all countries{\textquoteright} relative citation indicators are lower when fractionalised counting is used. Further, the difference between whole and fractionalised counts is generally greatest for the countries with the highest proportion of internationally co-authored articles. In our view there are strong arguments in favour of using fractionalised counts to calculate relative citation indexes at the national level, rather than using whole counts, which is the most common practice today.",
keywords = "scientometrics, bibliometrics, citation indicators, counting models",
author = "Aksnes, {Dag W.} and Schneider, {Jesper Wiborg} and Magnus Gunnarsson",
year = "2012",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "36--43",
journal = "Journal of Informetrics",
issn = "1751-1577",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ranking national research systems by citation indicators

T2 - A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods

AU - Aksnes, Dag W.

AU - Schneider, Jesper Wiborg

AU - Gunnarsson, Magnus

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - This paper presents an empirical analysis of two different methodologies for calculating national citation indicators: whole counts and fractionalised counts. The aim of our study is to investigate the effect on relative citation indicators when citations to documents are fractionalised among the authoring countries. We have performed two analyses: a time series analysis of one country and a cross-sectional analysis of 23 countries. The results show that all countries’ relative citation indicators are lower when fractionalised counting is used. Further, the difference between whole and fractionalised counts is generally greatest for the countries with the highest proportion of internationally co-authored articles. In our view there are strong arguments in favour of using fractionalised counts to calculate relative citation indexes at the national level, rather than using whole counts, which is the most common practice today.

AB - This paper presents an empirical analysis of two different methodologies for calculating national citation indicators: whole counts and fractionalised counts. The aim of our study is to investigate the effect on relative citation indicators when citations to documents are fractionalised among the authoring countries. We have performed two analyses: a time series analysis of one country and a cross-sectional analysis of 23 countries. The results show that all countries’ relative citation indicators are lower when fractionalised counting is used. Further, the difference between whole and fractionalised counts is generally greatest for the countries with the highest proportion of internationally co-authored articles. In our view there are strong arguments in favour of using fractionalised counts to calculate relative citation indexes at the national level, rather than using whole counts, which is the most common practice today.

KW - scientometrics

KW - bibliometrics

KW - citation indicators

KW - counting models

U2 - 10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002

DO - 10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002

M3 - Journal article

VL - 6

SP - 36

EP - 43

JO - Journal of Informetrics

JF - Journal of Informetrics

SN - 1751-1577

IS - 1

ER -