English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose In this work, we want to examine whether or not there are some scientific fields to which contributions from Chinese scholars have been under or over cited. Design/methodology/approach We do so by comparing the number of received citations and the IOF of publications in each scientific field from each country. The IOF is calculated from applying the modified closed system input–output analysis (MCSIOA) to the citation network. MCSIOA is a PageRank-like algorithm which means here that citations from the more influential subfields are weighted more towards the IOF. Findings About 40% of subfields in physics in China are undercited, meaning that their net influence ranks are higher (better) than the direct rank, while about 75% of subfields in the USA and German are undercited. Research limitations Only APS data is analyzed in this work. The expected citation influence is assumed to be represented by the IOF, and this can be wrong. Practical implications MCSIOA provides a measure of net influences and according to that measure. Overall, Chinese physicists’ publications are more likely overcited rather than being undercited. Originality/value The issue of under or over cited has been analyzed in this work using MCSIOA.

Are Contributions from Chinese Physicists Undercited?