IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v8y2014i4p997-1004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the new citation-rank approach P100′ in bibliometrics really new?

Author

Listed:
  • Schreiber, Michael

Abstract

The percentile-based rating scale P100 describes the citation impact in terms of the distribution of unique citation values. This approach has recently been refined by considering also the frequency of papers with the same citation counts. Here I compare the resulting P100′ with P100 for an empirical dataset and a simple fictitious model dataset. It is shown that P100′ is not much different from standard percentile-based ratings in terms of citation frequencies. A new indicator P100″ is introduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Schreiber, Michael, 2014. "Is the new citation-rank approach P100′ in bibliometrics really new?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 997-1004.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:997-1004
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000935
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2014.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2349-2350, November.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Opthof, 2011. "Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1370-1381, July.
    3. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2013. "Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P1," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 933-944.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2014. "From P100 to P100': A new citation-rank approach," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(9), pages 1939-1943, September.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2133-2146, November.
    6. Schreiber, Michael, 2014. "Examples for counterintuitive behavior of the new citation-rank indicator P100 for bibliometric evaluations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 738-748.
    7. Michael Schreiber, 2013. "Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(3), pages 640-643, March.
    8. Ronald Rousseau, 2012. "Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 416-420, February.
    9. Ronald Rousseau, 2012. "Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 416-420, February.
    10. Michael Schreiber, 2013. "Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(3), pages 640-643, March.
    11. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2015. "Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 408-418.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schreiber, Michael, 2014. "How to improve the outcome of performance evaluations in terms of percentiles for citation frequencies of my papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 873-879.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2013. "Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P1," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 933-944.
    3. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx & Andreas Barth, 2013. "The Normalization of Citation Counts Based on Classification Systems," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-9, August.
    5. Albarrán, Pedro & Herrero, Carmen & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Villar, Antonio, 2017. "The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 625-640.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    7. Michael Schreiber, 2013. "How much do different ways of calculating percentiles influence the derived performance indicators? A case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 821-829, December.
    8. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    9. Ashraf Uddin & Jaideep Bhoosreddy & Marisha Tiwari & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2016. "A Sciento-text framework to characterize research strength of institutions at fine-grained thematic area level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1135-1150, March.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Richard Williams, 2020. "An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1457-1478, August.
    11. Schreiber, Michael, 2014. "Examples for counterintuitive behavior of the new citation-rank indicator P100 for bibliometric evaluations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 738-748.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    13. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    14. Zhou, Ping & Zhong, Yongfeng, 2012. "The citation-based indicator and combined impact indicator—New options for measuring impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 631-638.
    15. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2013. "The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 158-165.
    17. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2015. "Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 408-418.
    18. Liping Yu & Houqiang Yu, 2016. "Does the average JIF percentile make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1979-1987, December.
    19. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    20. Yves Fassin, 2020. "The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 965-990, November.

    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:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:997-1004. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.