Skip to main content
Log in

Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators

Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims at contributing to the on-going discussion about building and applying bibliometric indicators. It sheds light on their properties and requirements concerning six different aspects: deterministic versus probabilistic approach, application-related properties, the time dependence, normalization issues, size dependence and network indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez, P., & Pulgarin, A. (1996). Application of the Rasch model to measuring the impact of scientific journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 12, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barcza, K., & Telcs, A. (2009). Paretian publication patterns imply Paretian Hirsch index. Scientometrics, 81, 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beirlant, J., Einmahl, J. H. J. (2007). Asymptotics for the Hirsch Index. CentER Discussion Paper #2007-86. Accessible at http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=65780.

  • Beirlant, J., Glänzel, W., Carbonez, A., & Leemans, H. (2007). Scoring research output using statistical quantile plotting. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. T., West, J. D., & Wiseman, M. A. (2008). The eigenfactor (TM) metrics. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 11433–11434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. L. (2005). The use of the generalized Waring process in modelling informetric data. Scientometrics, 64, 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D., & Chang, H. (1976). Differences in impact of scientific publications: some indices from a citation analysis. Social Studies of Science, 6, 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. F., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods. JASIST, 56, 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, N. L. (1978). On the citation influence methodology of Pinski and Narin. Information Processing and Management, 14, 93–95.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (1990). Some consequences of a characterization theorem based on truncated moments. Statistics, 21, 613–618.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2004). Towards a model for diachronous and synchronous citation analyses. Scientometrics, 60, 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus, 1, 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2009). The multi-dimensionality of journal impact. Scientometrics, 78, 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2010). On reliability and robustness of scientometrics indicators based on stochastic models. An evidence-based opinion paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1988). Theoretical and empirical studies of the tail of scientometric distributions. In L. Egghe, & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88 (pp. 75–83). Elsevier Science Publisher B.V.

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2011). A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking. Scientometrics, 87, 415–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Rousseau, R., & Russell, J. (2001). The publication-citation matrix and its derived quantities. Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, 524–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lem, S. (1978). The chain of chance. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated Impact Indicators compared with impact factors: an alternative research design with policy implications. JASIST, 62, 2133–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: principles for comparing sets of documents. JASIST, 62, 1370–1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. JASIST, 61, 2365–2369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, 346 pp, ISBN 1-4020-3713–9.

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2011). The source normalized impact per paper is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. JASIST, 62, 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, L. (1998). Asymptotically unbiased estimators for the extreme-value index. Statistics & Probability Letters, 38, 107–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications. Information Processing and Management, 12, 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. (1981). The analysis of square matrices of scientometric transaction. Scientometrics, 3, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Simple arithmetic versus intuitive understanding. ISSI Newsletter, 7, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincze, I. (1974). Mathematical Statistics. Eötvös University Budapest, (4th ed.) (in Hungarian).

  • Waltman, L. (2011). Personal communication.

  • Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: a cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M. (2010). Citing-side normalization of journal impact: a robust variant of the audience factor. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 392–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics 89, 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: the audience factor. JASIST, 59, 1856–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This is a version of a paper presented by the first author at the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Montreal, 5–8 September 2012). The full proceedings are published as: E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, V. Lariviere (Eds.), Proceedings of STI 2012 Montreal, Science-Metrix and OST, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. The authors would like to thank Dr. Bart Thijs (ECOOM/KU Leuven) for the statistical simulation based on the Belgian samples.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Glänzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F. Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics 96, 381–394 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z

Keywords

Navigation