Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Rescaling citations of publications in physics

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Filippo Radicchi, Claudio Castellano

Digital Libraries · Submitted 23 Dec 2010

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim However, when a rescaling procedure by the average is used, it is possible to compare impartially articles across years and fields.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 0.83 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1012.5314 (version 2)
Pith IDLDXTCOZD, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationClaudio Castellano, Filippo Radicchi. "Rescaling citations of publications in physics." arXiv:1012.5314 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/LDXTCOZD
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,808 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.28 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.11 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.26 · compares with prior results 0.28 · mentions code or data availability 0.87.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We analyze the citation distributions of all papers published in Physical Review journals between 1985 and 2009. The average number of citations received by papers published in a given year and in a given field is computed. Large variations are found, showing that it is not fair to compare citation numbers across fields and years. However, when a rescaling procedure by the average is used, it is possible to compare impartially articles across years and fields. We make the rescaling factors available for use by the readers. We also show that rescaling citation numbers by the number of publication authors has strong effects and should therefore be taken into account when assessing the bibliometric performance of researchers.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We analyze the citation distributions of all papers published in Physical Review journals between 1985 and 2009. contribution 0.52 0.94 0.03 asserted 0.90
s1 The average number of citations received by papers published in a given year and in a given field is computed. method 0.93 0.91 0.04 asserted 0.98
s2 Large variations are found, showing that it is not fair to compare citation numbers across fields and years. interpretation 0.59 0.94 0.29 asserted 1.00
s3 However, when a rescaling procedure by the average is used, it is possible to compare impartially articles across years and fields. result 0.41 0.74 0.73 hedged possibility 0.83
s4 We make the rescaling factors available for use by the readers. contribution 0.96 0.85 0.08 asserted 0.98
s5 We also show that rescaling citation numbers by the number of publication authors has strong effects and should therefore be taken into account when assessing the bibliometric performance of researchers. result 0.74 0.89 0.18 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.66 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We analyze the citation distributions of all papers published in Physical Review journals between 1985 and 2009. The average number of citations received by papers published in a given year and in a given field is computed. Large variations are found, showing that it is not fair to compare citation numbers across fields and years. However, when a rescaling procedure by the average is used, it is possible to compare impartially articles across years and fields. We make the rescaling factors available for use by the readers. We also show that rescaling citation numbers by the number of publication authors has strong effects and should therefore be taken into account when assessing the bibliometric performance of researchers.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.