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.
arXiv comment9 pages, 6 figures. Supporting information files available at http://filrad.homelinux.org
References in corpus (8)
- An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
- How Popular is Your Paper? An Empirical Study of the Citation Distribution
- Universality of citation distributions: towards an objective measure of scientific impact
- Stretched exponential distributions in Nature and Economy: ``Fat tails'' with characteristic scales
- Citation Statistics
- Rescaling citations of publications in physics
- National Scientific Facilities and Their Science Impact on Non-Biomedical Research
- Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: the case of fractional citation counts
Cited by in corpus (20)
- The Matthew effect in empirical data
- Ranking in evolving complex networks
- Universality of scholarly impact metrics
- Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality
- Interdisciplinarity: A Nobel Opportunity
- Universality of citation distributions for academic institutions and journals
- Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set
- Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years
- Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: a case study of high-impact journals
- Quality versus quantity in scientific impact
- The citation wake of publications detects Nobel laureates' papers
- The Z-index: A geometric representation of productivity and impact which accounts for information in the entire rank-citation profile
- The Accuracy of Confidence Intervals for Field Normalised Indicators
- How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations?
- Testing for universality of Mendeley readership distributions
- Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs
- A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
- 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
- Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data?