average citation rates by field 2020

Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc. Peritz, B. As with all bibliometric indicators, field variation is significant, so much depends on field definition and the alignment of individuals and their work. Journal of Documentation,64(1), 4580. Baselines and subject schemas create Bakare, V., & Lewison, G. (2017). The Frontiers Neuroscience journal series includes all Frontiers journals in the field of Neuroscience. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. dividing the total number of citations received by all papers in the group Scientometrics, 79(1), 147-156. 2019; Peroni et al. The process captured in Fig. Measuring research. 5 . Those citations are from articles published between 2008 and the present. Individual, country, and journal self-citation in soil science. Lawani, S. M. (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.009. Price, D. J. D. (1971). For months after, cases and fatalities rose at staggering clips as governing bodies worldwide grappled with the best measures to contain the virus. When the randomized 1:1 sample was analyzed, Covid-19 papers still received 82% more citations than non-Covid-19 papers (p<0.001, 95% CI [1.202.43]). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212540. You can find an article's field normalized citation metrics in either iCite or Scopus. A users guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. PLOS ONE, impact factor 3.1) publish many papers that are cited 0 to 5 times but few highly cited articles. Scientometrics,61(3), 395404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23728. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02948. For simplicity of the Appendix (Figs. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,69(7), 949952. & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24046. Annalen der Physik,18(9), 607621. the current year (data is updated six times a year). These data are therefore susceptible to a thorough quantitative analysis that is unaffected by small-number effects among papers or cites for any single cluster. We first need to add up the number of citations the article has received the year it was published and the 3 calendar years following its publication (i.e., 2017 to the end of December, 2020). Rather than setting a percentage of author self-citation above which an individual would be eliminated from consideration, we examined the distributions of author self-citation rates (and author self-referencing rates) for each of the 21 fields to determine true outliers. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. proposed a statistical method to evaluate the universality of citation impact metrics, i.e., their capability to compare impact fairly across fields. Average citations increased from 3.9 in 2019 to 4.8 in 2020 for every article published with us. Glnzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. Scientometrics,120(2), 775791. 2019; Biagioli et al. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018535.99885.e9. [30], In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, Universit de Montral, Imperial College London, PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature and Science proposed citation distributions metrics as alternative to impact factors. PLoS ONE 17(7): Percentile values are baselines for evaluating research impact. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-1716-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019738. Merton, R. K. (1957). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. 2006; Minasny et al. The difference between research influence and self-citation excess, $${\text{Threshold}} = \left[ {{\text{Q}}3} \right] + \left[ {\left( {{\text{Q}}3 - {\text{Q}}1} \right)*N} \right]$$, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5, How hot are hot papers? [15], Citation distribution is skewed for journals because a very small number of articles is driving the vast majority of citations; therefore, some journals have stopped publicizing their impact factor, e.g. Scientometrics,44(3), 521531. (2004a). Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,98(610), 13471348. A/B = 2021 impact factor. Kacem et al. The negative binomial regression model was selected over a linear regression model because it resulted in a better fit to the data and was more appropriate for count data. Individual author data-points appear as outliers, discontinuous with the central range, which lie beyond the calculated test thresholds. Thus, data include a combination of open-access and subscription-based publications in the non-Covid-19 articles. From one perspective, self-citation functions in the same way as any cited reference appended to a paper: it points to publications on which the present work depends, is related, or is positioned by the author. The journal citation reports (SCI edition) with and without journal self-citations. When negative binomial regression is used to minimize the influence of other variables such as article number variation and field of research, Covid-19 papers have still experienced more than 80% increase in citations relative to non-Covid-19 papers. In this way, three separate citation averages were gathered for each journal: 1) all articles 2) non-Covid-19 articles 3) only Covid-19 articles. Elsevier's Field-Weighted Citation Impact . Each graph includes Q1, Median, Q3 and the lower and upper thresholds (set at 1.5 and 3 times the inter-quartile range, IQR) for indicative outliers (see Fig. Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations. 4) show a superficially similar pattern to those for self-referencing, with a relatively consistent series of median values up to around 6% self-citations. 2006; Schubert et al. How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited. Many other measures have been proposed, beyond simple citation counts, to better quantify an individual scholar's citation impact. The negative binomial regression model is similar to the Poisson regression model (for count data) except that it performs better with data over-dispersion [13, 14]. The Frontiers Neuroscience journal series includes all Frontiers journals in the field of Neuroscience. The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric meso-indicators: The case of European universities. 2020, Vol. in 2008 received 20.42 citations. Mean citation rate per article in mathematics journals: Differences from the scientific model. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090160305. (2019) also urge that self-citations should remain in a citation record and that what is needed is transparency, not removal. Citation metrics are widely used and misused. Scientometrics,59(1), 6377. The same data are shown as a linear plot and a log plot. is reasonable to infer that these rates are higher than those for all papers in Median rates of self-referencing were generally within a small range, from 7.38% in Economics & Business (ECB) to 11.26% in Social Sciences (SSS) with upper quartiles below 16%. Finally, though WOS is a comprehensive and highly regarded database, it is not without shortcomings. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., DeVries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2008.10700836. For example, if the value of the 1.00% percentile is 15, a paper in the same research field in the same year must receive at least 15 citations to belong to that percentile. In a study based on the Web of Science database across 118 scientific disciplines, the top 1% most-cited authors accounted for 21% of all citations. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500403. The rate of self-citation increases progressively across most of the spread of researchers. As noted in the Introduction, typical rate of self-referencing around 10% was discussed by Garfield (1979) and has since been found by others. 2018; Scarpa et al. (2008). NSB, 2020, p. V-12, Fig. The data set, which lists around 100,000 researchers, shows that at least 250 scientists have amassed more than 50% of their citations from themselves or their co-authors, while the median. Garfield, E. (1979). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Self-citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance. Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact", "Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates", "Ditching Impact Factors for Deeper Data", "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies", "Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals", "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles", "Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How It Increases Research Citation Impact", "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research", "Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial", "The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article's citations", "Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact", "Scholarometer: A Social Framework for Analyzing Impact across Disciplines", "What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation", 20.500.11755/2fd7fc12-1766-4ddd-8f19-1d2603d2e11d, "Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications", "Psychology and Wikipedia: Measuring Psychology Journals' Impact by Wikipedia Citations", "Psychology and Wikipedia: Measuring journals' impact by Wikipedia citations", "Research Quality, Publications and Impact in Civil Engineering into the 21st Century. Additionally, citation rate for Covid-19 papers has been assessed previously without direct comparison to non-Covid-19 papers in the same journals [20]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0006-3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384. Porter, A. L. (1977). A standard boxplot normally displays 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (i.e. Each graph includes Q1, Median, Q3 and the lower and upper thresholds (set at 1.5 and 3 times the inter-quartile range, IQR) for indicative outliers (see Fig. Science Technology & Society,23(1), 124. Using information provided in Clarivate's 2020 Journal Citation Reports [] published on June 30, 2021, the top three journals by impact factor were selected from eight scientific categories as defined by WOS.Disciplines were selected based on the likelihood of having high relevancy to Covid-19 and, therefore, a sufficient volume of Covid-19-related papers in that field . Clarivate Analytics Essential Science Indicators (ESI) is another resource. [47] Two reasons for this are that many of the top-cited journals today are still only hybrid OA (author has the option to pay for gold)[48] and many pure author-pays OA journals today are either of low quality or downright fraudulent "predatory journals," preying on authors' eagerness to publish-or-perish, thereby lowering the average citation counts of OA journals.[49]. This number dips only slightly to 82% when the smaller, randomized sample is compared. For additional information on how RCRs are calculated, see Hutchins et al. A variety of values for N may be considered, where a low threshold would be more exclusive, delineating a relatively large proportion of researchers to be reviewed, and a high threshold would be conservative, maximising inclusiveness and focussing only on extreme outliers. ISBN 0 2625 37933. . Any paper published in the 2018; Copiello 2019; Ioannidis and Thombs 2019). Ghiasi, G., Larivire, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Google Scholar. That is to say: a test threshold value is set above the third quartile (Q3) boundary equivalent to N times the inter-quartile range (Q3Q1). The median (M=Q2) and lower (Q1) and upper (Q3) quartile values for percentage self-citation rate among Highly Cited Researchers were calculated for each ESI field. (2010). When controlling for influence of field categorization and article numbers, Covid-19 papers received 84% more citations than non-Covid-19 papers in the non-randomized sample (p<0.001, 95% CI [1.222.45]). This is most easily interpreted on the linear plot, whereas statistical sense would suggest that the data should be log-plotted because of the skewed negative binomial distribution. In fact, later in the 1980s Merton predicted it in conversations with staff at the Institute for Scientific Information (D. Pendlebury, pers. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). Bornmann, L. (2017). The threshold number of highly cited papers that determines selection differs by field, with Clinical Medicine requiring the most and Agricultural Sciences, Economics & Business, and Pharmacology & Toxicology typically among the fewest. Fong, E. A. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161021. Scopus also offers a Citation Tracker feature that allows for a listing of articles, web sources and patents that cite a particular publication since 1996. Scientometrics 123, 11191147 (2020). It's 27% for natural sciences and 32% for social sciences ( cite ). Not to be confused with. World flash on basic research: The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators. Whilst in Sociology the number of references, the article length, and title length are among the factors. Next, articles without the terms Covid-19, coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2 in the title were selected to provide an average citation rate for only non-Covid-19 articles in the journal. Baccini, A., De Nicolao, G., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Science and technology in a democratic order. From excessive journal self-cites to citation stacking: Analysis of journal self-citation kinetics in search for journals, which boost their scientometric indicators. It has recently been suggested there may be increasing misrepresentation of research performance by individuals who self-cite inordinately to achieve scores and win rewards. [18] The best-known measures include the h-index[19] and the g-index. Significance was considered when the P-value was < 0.05. Yu, T., Yu, G., Song, Y., & Wang, M. Y. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(7), 13231332. B = the total number of citations published during 2020 and 2021. (1983). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198909)40:5%3c342:AID-ASI7%3e3.0.CO;2-U. The reasons for this require expert, informed interpretation but the degree to which this category may capture a series of small, isolated fields has been noted previously (Bensman et al. How much is too much? Some descriptive examples illustrate the variation. 1 with the parameters of a lognormal fit to a negative binomial distribution. Temporal differences in self-citation rates of scientific journals. Observation of the field profile is more informative than any average value and, for most fields, the central range lies below 10% self-citation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016632. Publish or Perish, Commercial versus Open Access, Internet versus Libraries? (2020). reported that on average, delayed OAJs had citation rates twice as high as TAJs, and 3 times as high as immediate OAJs [9]. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21042. Journals, especially to game the impact factor (Rousseau 1999; Frandsen 2007; Yu and Wang 2007; Campanario 2011; Wilhite and Fong 2012; Yu et al. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Baas, J., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2019). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(7), 14401463. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,40(5), 342349. Only Covid-19 articles within the Medicine, General, and Internal category were significantly affected by the field itself with a 28% boost in citation rate relative to non-Covid-19 articles (p = 0.029, 95%CI [0.132.43]). American Sociological Review,22(6), 635659. 2018); about 13% as a median, using co-author self-citation (Ioannidis et al. 844851. Geoderma,155(34), 434438. There are too many studies to list, some dealing with broad and others with specific fields, and differing with respect to time windows, but a few may be mentioned with the statistics they report: 9% overall, 15% for the physical sciences, 6% for the social sciences, and 3% for the humanities, using co-author self-citation (Snyder and Bonzi 1998); 11%, using author self-citation (Fowler and Aksnes 2007); roughly 15% of references and 13% of citations, using co-author self-citation (Sugimoto and Larivire 2018); about 13%, using co-author self-citation (Mishra et al. We had reason to question this approach when we noted that China was leading in citation rates The expected citation rate of articles in its co-citation network published in the same year is 6 citations per year. It uses Google Scholar to obtain the raw citations, then analyzes these and presents a variety of statistics. (2016). Central range is used here as a descriptive, non-technical term to indicate the more consistent plateau of similar self-citation rates within each field that encompasses somewhat more than the inter-quartile range for these data. Jonathan Adams. A note on self-citation rates in astronomical papers. Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. The Scopus web site claims this database is the "largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and quality web sources with smart tools to track, analyze and visualize research." Scientometrics,73(3), 321330. Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Motivations for citations: A comparison of self-citation and citation to others. (2016). Zhao, D. Z., & Strotmann, A. Ideas in Ecology and Evaluation,7(1), 12. For all years, Microbiology papers in the 10% percentile received a minimum of 38 citations. This was particularly true among the outliers, in other words: researchers who self-reference at unusually high rates (above the central range) are also authors on papers where an unusually high proportion of the citations received are self-citations. It follows that 90% of Microbiology papers published in 2011 received fewer than 14 citations. Amidst all of this, there has been an explosion of peer-reviewed literature about Covid-19 as researchers work to uncover details such as structure, infectivity, spread, effects, prevention, and treatment of this novel virus. Otherwise, the person would be forced into publishing in obscure journals. Chapter https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.008. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. One way that these effects may be observed is through the influence that Covid-19 papers will have on JIF. Institutions (Glnzel et al. . For everything except humanities, those numbers are far from 90% but they are still high: One third of social science articles go uncited! While our research reveals the substantial degree to which Covid-19 articles are being cited in top journals relative to non-Covid-19 articles, the effect on journals themselves remains to be seen. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. These rates of self-citation are evidently much lower than those of self-referencing, as expected for Highly Cited Researchers because their broad peer influence attracts many cites from others (van Raan 2008), and they are relatively more variable between fields compared to self-referencing.

Small Talk In Australian Workplace, Anthony Slaughter Dad, What Is 11 Point White Balance Correction, Affordable Wedding Venues In Central Florida, Folarin Alakija Wedding, Articles A