Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation

By Jian Wang. Scientometrics, 2012

388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4491e5677800f2bfc0131f223a8a61ace5fbd67

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

Prominent but Less Productive (2015, background): “This effect also holds when we exclude group authors, whose papers tend to be highly cited, and when we consider a narrow window of only 2001–2002 publications, a period beyond the five years useful for predicting long-term citations (Wang, 2013; results not shown).”
Creativity in scientific teams: : Unpacking novelty and impact (2015, methodology): “papers (Rogers, 2010; Wang, 2013), we adopt alternative impact measures: 1) five-year moving time window citation counts and 2) citation counts up to April 2013, for robustness checks.”
Bias against Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators (2017, positive): “We use a 13-year time window to count citations, which is deemed sufficiently long across fields (Wang, 2013).”
Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics (2014, background): “One of the biggest disadvantages of citation counts in measuring impact is that a reliable and valid measurement can only be provided several years after publication (Wang, 2013).”
Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science (2015, result): “The results indicate that many SBs become highly inﬂu-ential more than 50 years after their publication, far longer than typical time windows for measuring citation impact, corroborating recent studies on understanding the use of short time windows to approximate long-term citations [38–40].”
Scientometrics in a changing research landscape (2014, neutral): “[6].”
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, background): “According to Wang (2013), there is no generally applicable rule for choosing”