Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation
arXiv:1612.01431 · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002
Abstract
Although altmetrics and other web-based alternative indicators are now commonplace in publishers' websites, they can be difficult for research evaluators to use because of the time or expense of the data, the need to benchmark in order to assess their values, the high proportion of zeros in some alternative indicators, and the time taken to calculate multiple complex indicators. These problems are addressed here by (a) a field normalisation formula, the Mean Normalised Log-transformed Citation Score (MNLCS) that allows simple confidence limits to be calculated and is similar to a proposal of Lundberg, (b) field normalisation formulae for the proportion of cited articles in a set, the Equalised Mean-based Normalised Proportion Cited (EMNPC) and the Mean-based Normalised Proportion Cited (MNPC), to deal with mostly uncited data sets, (c) a sampling strategy to minimise data collection costs, and (d) free unified software to gather the raw data, implement the sampling strategy, and calculate the indicator formulae and confidence limits. The approach is demonstrated (but not fully tested) by comparing the Scopus citations, Mendeley readers and Wikipedia mentions of research funded by Wellcome, NIH, and MRC in three large fields for 2013-2016. Within the results, statistically significant differences in both citation counts and Mendeley reader counts were found even for sets of articles that were less than six months old. Mendeley reader counts were more precise than Scopus citations for the most recent articles and all three funders could be demonstrated to have an impact in Wikipedia that was significantly above the world average.
Thelwall, M. (in press). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002 Changes from the previous version are highlighted in yellow
References in corpus (7)
- On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators
- The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression
- The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach
- National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers
- Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions
- National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator
- Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals
Cited by in corpus (21)
- Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison
- Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews, case studies, focus groups and ethnographies
- Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics
- In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?
- Why are co-authored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience?
- Which international co-authorships produce higher quality journal articles?
- Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals
- Open Access Books in the Humanities and Social Sciences: an Open Access Altmetric Advantage
- Microsoft Academic Automatic Document Searches: Accuracy for Journal Articles and Suitability for Citation Analysis
- Predicting article quality scores with machine learning: The UK Research Excellence Framework
- Is Research Funding Always Beneficial? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of UK Research 2014-20
- Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis
- Evaluating the quality of published medical research with ChatGPT
- In which fields do higher impact journals publish higher quality articles?
- Field- and time-normalization of data with many zeros: An empirical analysis using citation and Twitter data
- The Accuracy of Confidence Intervals for Field Normalised Indicators
- The role of preprints in open science: Accelerating knowledge transfer from science to technology
- Is OpenAlex Suitable for Research Quality Evaluation and Which Citation Indicator is Best?
- Interpretation and inference for altmetric indicators arising from sparse data statistics
- Confidence intervals for normalised citation counts: Can they delimit underlying research capability?
- Amplifying Academic Research through YouTube: Engagement Metrics as Predictors of Citation Impact