A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking
A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-011-0345-6
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Debackere, Koenraad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Glaenzel, Wolfgang;Schubert, Andras;Debackere, Koenraad
本文讨论了引文影响测度规范化的两种典型方法。对标准指标（如引用手段，特别是期刊影响因子）进行数学操作的结果（称为后验归一化）与从分数引用计数（称为先验归一化）获得的引用度量进行比较。选择生命科学和数学两个子领域的分布进行分析。结果表明，这两种方法都为比较评价期刊引文影响提供了有用的指标工具。
Two paradigmatic approaches to the normalisation of citation-impact measures are discussed. The results of the mathematical manipulation of standard indicators such as citation means, notably journal Impact Factors, (called a posteriori normalisation) are compared with citation measures obtained from fractional citation counting (called a priori normalisation). The distributions of two subfields of the life sciences and mathematics are chosen for the analysis. It is shown that both methods provide indicators that are useful tools for the comparative assessment of journal citation impact.