A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

By Ludo Waltman. J. Informetrics, 2015

1,231 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83199b297541263fd15b057797e0093e528602ae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A Brief Introduction (2017, neutral): “, & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks.”
Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019, methodology): “More attention has been paid to methodological issues such as appropriate methods for normalizing absolute citation counts (Waltman, van Eck, van Leeuwen, Visser, & van Raan, 2011b), in addition to development and examinations of new citation-based indicators such as the h-index (Bornmann & Daniel, ”
Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus (2015, neutral): “ According to a recent literature review (Waltman, 2015, Section 3), previous studies comparing WoS and Scopus are mainly focused on two aspects.”
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World (2021, methodology): “not surprising that the coverage of books and conference proceedings both in WoS and Scopus was generally determined to be insufficient, aiming to use the DBs as the data sources for analyzing or evaluating disciplines where these source types are the most prevalent [26,44,88].”
Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review (2016, background): “and Whitley, R. (2010) The UK research assessment exercise: a case of regulatory capture.”
Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting (2016, methodology): “In the case of the full counting method, a publication co-authored by three researchers is assigned to each researcher with a full weight of one.”
Industry 4.0: A Bibliometric Review of Its Managerial Intellectual Structure and Potential Evolution in the Service Industries (2019, background): “Second, as scholars face a trade-off between data coverage and cleanliness, Scopus has been found to have a coverage of approximately 60% larger than WoS (Zhao and Strotmann, 2015), which increases over time in relation to the WoS (Mongeon and PaulHus, 2016; Waltman, 2016).”
A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics (2018, methodology): “This database is multidisciplinary and is comprised of three citation indices: the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (Waltman, 2016).”
Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North (2017, background): “Thus this hypothesis needs more research n order to be fully understood. licy 46 (2017) 265–279 of these impact indicators, it is recommended to use more than one single indicator in order to obtain more robust conclusions (Bornmann and Leydesdorff, 2013; Waltman, 2016).”
The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems (2017, background): “The well-known ones include the following [187,226]:”