Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods
Dag W. Aksnes,
Jesper W. Schneider and
Journal of Informetrics, 2012, vol. 6, issue 1, 36-43
This paper presents an empirical analysis of two different methodologies for calculating national citation indicators: whole counts and fractionalised counts. The aim of our study is to investigate the effect on relative citation indicators when citations to documents are fractionalised among the authoring countries. We have performed two analyses: a time series analysis of one country and a cross-sectional analysis of 23 countries. The results show that all countries’ relative citation indicators are lower when fractionalised counting is used. Further, the difference between whole and fractionalised counts is generally greatest for the countries with the highest proportion of internationally co-authored articles. In our view there are strong arguments in favour of using fractionalised counts to calculate relative citation indexes at the national level, rather than using whole counts, which is the most common practice today.
Keywords: Citation indicators; Bibliometric methods; International co-authorship (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (23) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:6:y:2012:i:1:p:36-43
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe
More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier
Series data maintained by Dana Niculescu ().