A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions
arXiv:1203.6742 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033833
Abstract
The large amount of information contained in bibliographic databases has recently boosted the use of citations, and other indicators based on citation numbers, as tools for the quantitative assessment of scientific research. Citations counts are often interpreted as proxies for the scientific influence of papers, journals, scholars, and institutions. However, a rigorous and scientifically grounded methodology for a correct use of citation counts is still missing. In particular, cross-disciplinary comparisons in terms of raw citation counts systematically favors scientific disciplines with higher citation and publication rates. Here we perform an exhaustive study of the citation patterns of millions of papers, and derive a simple transformation of citation counts able to suppress the disproportionate citation counts among scientific domains. We find that the transformation is well described by a power-law function, and that the parameter values of the transformation are typical features of each scientific discipline. Universal properties of citation patterns descend therefore from the fact that citation distributions for papers in a specific field are all part of the same family of univariate distributions.
9 pages, 6 figures. Supporting information files available at http://filrad.homelinux.org
References in corpus (3)
Cited by in corpus (7)
- The Matthew effect in empirical data
- Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality
- Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: a case study of high-impact journals
- The Accuracy of Confidence Intervals for Field Normalised Indicators
- Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs
- Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison
- A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators