IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v68y2017i4p1064-1067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): An empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Robin Haunschild

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): An empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 1064-1067, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:68:y:2017:i:4:p:1064-1067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/asi.23729
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. A Cecile J W Janssens & Michael Goodman & Kimberly R Powell & Marta Gwinn, 2017. "A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-5, October.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:68:y:2017:i:4:p:1064-1067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.