On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics

Abstract

Abstract We evaluate article-level metrics along two dimensions. Firstly, we analyse metrics’ ranking bias in terms of fields and time. Secondly, we evaluate their performance based on test data that consists of (1) papers that have won high-impact awards and (2) papers that have won prizes for outstanding quality. We consider different citation impact indicators and indirect ranking algorithms in combination with various normalisation approaches (mean-based, percentile-based, co-citation-based, and post hoc rescaling). We execute all experiments on two publication databases which use different field categorisation schemes (author-chosen concept categories and categories based on papers’ semantic information). In terms of bias, we find that citation counts are always less time biased but always more field biased compared to PageRank. Furthermore, rescaling paper scores by a constant number of similarly aged papers reduces time bias more effectively compared to normalising by calendar years. We also find that percentile citation scores are less field and time biased than mean-normalised citation counts. In terms of performance, we find that time-normalised metrics identify high-impact papers better shortly after their publication compared to their non-normalised variants. However, after 7 to 10 years, the non-normalised metrics perform better. A similar trend exists for the set of high-quality papers where these performance cross-over points occur after 5 to 10 years. Lastly, we also find that personalising PageRank with papers’ citation counts reduces time bias but increases field bias. Similarly, using papers’ associated journal impact factors to personalise PageRank increases its field bias. In terms of performance, PageRank should always be personalised with papers’ citation counts and time-rescaled for citation windows smaller than 7 to 10 years.