Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods

Aksnes, Dag W.; Schneider, Jesper W.; Gunnarsson, Magnus

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002

Cited by 101 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way, the space of articles is expanded as much as necessary beyond the initial size arriving to what we call the geographical extended count. The total extended number of 4,142,281 articles is 13.5 % larger than in the original dataset (Aksnes et al 2012 however, offer arguments in favor of using fractionalised rather than whole counts).…”

Section: Assignment Of Articles To Geographical Areas and To Sub Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 80%

The end of the “European Paradox”

Herranz

Ruiz‐Castillo

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates the European Paradox according to which Europe plays a leading world role in terms of scientific excellence, measured in terms of the number of publications, but lacks the entrepreneurial capacity of the US to transform this excellent performance into innovation, growth, and jobs. Citation distributions for the US, the European Union (EU), and the Rest of the World are evaluated using a pair of high and low impact indicators, as well as the mean citation rate (MCR). The dataset consists of 3.6 million articles published in 1998 2002 with a common 5 year citation window. The analysis is carried at a low aggregation level, namely, the 219 sub fields identified with the Web of Science categories distinguished by Thomson Scientific. The problems posed by international co authorship and the multiple assignments of articles to sub fields are solved following a multiplicative strategy.

show abstract

Section: Assignment Of Articles To Geographical Areas and To Sub Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 80%

The end of the “European Paradox”

Herranz

Ruiz‐Castillo

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With our focus on the knowledge structure and main lines of graphene research, we selected Author Keywords in conjunction with Indexed Keywords as the unit of analysis; their co-occurrence was, as we mentioned before, the unit of measurement. The most popular methodologies for estimating co-occurrence are the full counting (whole counting for others) and the fractional counting (Aksnes et al, 2012). In the case of the full counting method, for instance, when one keyword co-occurs with another five within a single document, it would be assigned a full weight of one.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Visualization of the Intellectual Structure in Graphene Research

Vargas-Quesada

Chinchilla‐Rodríguez

Rodríguez

2017

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the discovery of the promising properties of graphene, research in the field has attracted numerous grants and sponsors, leading to an exponential rise in the number of papers and applications. This article presents a global map of graphene research and its intellectual structure, drawn using the terms of more than 50,000 documents extracted from Scopus database, years 1998-2015. The unit of analysis consisted of descriptors (including Author Keywords and Indexed Keywords), with the co-occurrence of descriptor as the unit of measure, using fractional counting. The main research lines identified are: Fundamental Research, Functionalization and Biomedical Applications, Technology and Devices, Materials Science, Energy Storage, Optics and Chemical Properties and Sensors. Using overlay maps, we depict the graphene research efforts of the United States, the European Union (Europe-28), and China, and project their evolution through longitudinal maps to facilitate comparison. The United States was initially at the head of world output in graphene research, but was surpassed by China in 2011 and by Europe in 2014, as a result of their respective scientific policies and financial support. The output of China has since been so intense that it can be said to mark graphene research trends. We believe this information may be valuable for the core community involved in this scientific field, as it offers a large-scale analysis showing how research has changed over time. It is therefore also helpful for policy makers and research planners. The resulting maps are a useful and attractive tool for the graphene research community, as they reveal the main lines of exploration at a glance. The methodology described here could be re-created in any other field of science to uncover and display its intellectual structure and evolution over time.

show abstract

“…In fractionalized counting a country is credited a fraction of a publication equal to the fraction of the author addresses from this country (1/n). The whole count method is the most commonly applied method of constructing citation indicators (Aksnesa, Schneider and Gunnarsson 2012;Gauffriau et al 2007), with the exception of the Science and Engineering Indicator report published by the US National Science Foundation, in which articles and citations are counted on a fractional basis (National Science Board 2010). Both methods of calculating citation indices are considered correct (Aksnesa, Schneider and Gunnarsson 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The whole count method is the most commonly applied method of constructing citation indicators (Aksnesa, Schneider and Gunnarsson 2012;Gauffriau et al 2007), with the exception of the Science and Engineering Indicator report published by the US National Science Foundation, in which articles and citations are counted on a fractional basis (National Science Board 2010). Both methods of calculating citation indices are considered correct (Aksnesa, Schneider and Gunnarsson 2012). Considering that we cannot fully judge a country's contributions to internationally co-authored publications based solely on its number of coauthors, we decided to use the whole count method.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%