How to Count Citations If You Must: Comment
David Stern () and
Richard Tol ()
Working Paper Series from Department of Economics, University of Sussex
Perry and Reny (2016) show that the Euclidean length of a citation list satisfies five axioms including "depth relevance". We explore "breadth relevance", which favors consistent achievers over one-hit wonders. A convex combination of depth and breadth relevant citation metrics does not satisfy the independence axiom, but violations are rare. We estimate the parameters of this metric using two datasets and three rankings, controlling for cohort effects. We find that simply counting citations--neither breadth nor depth--maximizes the correlation between citation index and department rank. However, depth may explain the allocation of researchers across lower ranked departments.
Keywords: research assessment; citations (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A14 C43 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
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:sus:susewp:0118
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Paper Series from Department of Economics, University of Sussex Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Russell Eke ().