Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The citation-based indicator and combined impact indicator - New options for measuring impact

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1205.2424 v1 pith:KRMYKR62 submitted 2012-05-11 cs.DL physics.soc-ph

classification cs.DLphysics.soc-ph
keywords impactindicatorindicatorscitationpublicationscausedcitation-basedcitations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Metrics based on percentile ranks (PRs) for measuring scholarly impact involves complex treatment because of various defects such as overvaluing or devaluing an object caused by percentile ranking schemes, ignoring precise citation variation among those ranked next to each other, and inconsistency caused by additional papers or citations. These defects are especially obvious in a small-sized dataset. To avoid the complicated treatment of PRs based metrics, we propose two new indicators - the citation-based indicator (CBI) and the combined impact indicator (CII). Document types of publications are taken into account. With the two indicators, one would no more be bothered by complex issues encountered by PRs based indicators. For a small-sized dataset with less than 100 papers, special calculation is no more needed. The CBI is based solely on citation counts and the CII measures the integrate contributions of publications and citations. Both virtual and empirical data are used so as to compare the effect of related indicators. The CII and the PRs based indicator I3 are highly correlated but the former reflects citation impact more and the latter relates more to publications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools