scholarly journals Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 635-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amrita Purkayastha ◽  
Eleonora Palmaro ◽  
Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski ◽  
Jeroen Baas
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Ian Hutchins ◽  
Xin Yuan ◽  
James M. Anderson ◽  
George M. Santangelo

AbstractDespite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method that makes novel use of the co-citation network of each article to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article-level and field-independent, and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using Journal Impact Factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010, and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research, and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Dechow ◽  
Richard G. Sloan ◽  
Jean (Jieyin) Zeng

SYNOPSIS We propose a new set of citation metrics for evaluating the relative impact of scholarly research in accounting. Our metrics are based on current practices in bibliometrics and normalize citations by both field (accounting) and year of publication. We show that our normalized citation metrics dominate other commonly used metrics in accounting when predicting the long-term citation impact of recently published research. We conduct our analysis using citations from the Social Science Citation Index for the top six general interest accounting journals. More generally, our metrics can be readily constructed using any citation database and for any subfield of accounting. The metrics simply require the total citation counts for a benchmark set of papers published in the same calendar year. The use of these metrics should enable more informed performance evaluations of junior accounting researchers.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fakhri Momeni ◽  
Philipp Mayr ◽  
Nicholas Fraser ◽  
Isabella Peters

AbstractIn recent years, increased stakeholder pressure to transition research to Open Access has led to many journals converting, or ‘flipping’, from a closed access (CA) to an open access (OA) publishing model. Changing the publishing model can influence the decision of authors to submit their papers to a journal, and increased article accessibility may influence citation behaviour. In this paper we aimed to understand how flipping a journal to an OA model influences the journal’s future publication volumes and citation impact. We analysed two independent sets of journals that had flipped to an OA model, one from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and one from the Open Access Directory (OAD), and compared their development with two respective control groups of similar journals. For bibliometric analyses, journals were matched to the Scopus database. We assessed changes in the number of articles published over time, as well as two citation metrics at the journal and article level: the normalised impact factor (IF) and the average relative citations (ARC), respectively. Our results show that overall, journals that flipped to an OA model increased their publication output compared to journals that remained closed. Mean normalised IF and ARC also generally increased following the flip to an OA model, at a greater rate than was observed in the control groups. However, the changes appear to vary largely by scientific discipline. Overall, these results indicate that flipping to an OA publishing model can bring positive changes to a journal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document