Globalised vs averaged: Bias and ranking performance on the author level

We analyse the difference between the averaged (average of ratios) and globalised (ratio of averages) author-level aggregation approaches based on various paper-level metrics. We evaluate the aggregation variants in terms of (1) their field bias on the author-level and (2) their ranking performance based on test data that comprises researchers that have received fellowship status or won prestigious awards for their long-lasting and high-impact research contributions to their fields. We consider various direct and indirect paper-level metrics with different normalisation approaches (mean-based, percentile-based, co-citation-based) and focus on the bias and performance differences between the two aggregation variants of each metric. We execute all experiments on two publication databases which use different field categorisation schemes. The first uses author-chosen concept categories and covers the computer science literature. The second covers all disciplines and categorises papers by keywords based on their contents. In terms of bias, we find relatively little difference between the averaged and globalised variants. For mean-normalised citation counts we find no significant difference between the two approaches. However, the percentile-based metric shows less bias with the globalised approach, except for citation windows smaller than four years. On the multi-disciplinary database, PageRank has the overall least bias but shows no significant difference between the two aggregation variants. The averaged variants of most metrics have less bias for small citation windows. For larger citation windows the differences are smaller and are mostly insignificant.