Counting publications and citations: Is more always better?

Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck and Paul Wouters

Journal of Informetrics, 2013, vol. 7, issue 3, 635-641

Abstract: Is more always better? We address this question in the context of bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a simple model in which the number of citations of a publication depends not only on the scientific impact of the publication but also on other ‘random’ factors. Our model indicates that more need not always be better. It turns out that the most influential researchers may have a systematically lower performance, in terms of highly cited publications, than some of their less influential colleagues. The model also suggests an improved way of counting highly cited publications.

Keywords: Bibliometric index; Citation; Highly cited publication; Modeling; Scientific impact (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (16)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000357
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:7:y:2013:i:3:p:635-641

DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.001

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe

More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().