Abstract
In this paper we study the effects of field normalization baseline on relative performance of 20 natural science departments in terms of citation impact. Impact is studied under three baselines: journal, ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category, and Essential Science Indicators field. For the measurement of citation impact, the indicators item-oriented mean normalized citation rate and Top-5% are employed. The results, which we analyze with respect to stability, show that the choice of normalization baseline matters. We observe that normalization against publishing journal is particular. The rankings of the departments obtained when journal is used as baseline, irrespective of indicator, differ considerably from the rankings obtained when ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category or Essential Science Indicators field is used. Since no substantial differences are observed when the baselines Essential Science Indicators field and ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category are contrasted, one might suggest that people without access to subject category data can perform reasonable normalized citation impact studies by combining normalization against journal with normalization against Essential Science Indicators field.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
