Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators: Waxing field impact but waning journal impact

Abstract

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world‐wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five‐year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.

Citation

Nederhof, A.J. and Visser, M.S. (2004), "Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators: Waxing field impact but waning journal impact", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 658-672. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410410568142