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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can bestbe normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from differentscientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empiricalanalysis, we compare a traditional normalization approach based on a fieldclassification system with three source normalization approaches. We payspecial attention to the selection of the publications included in theanalysis. Publications in national scientific journals, popular scientificmagazines, and trade magazines are not included. Unlike earlier studies, we usealgorithmically constructed classification systems to evaluate the differentnormalization approaches. Our analysis shows that a source normalizationapproach based on the recently introduced idea of fractional citation countingdoes not perform well. Two other source normalization approaches generallyoutperform the classification-system-based normalization approach that westudy. Our analysis therefore offers considerable support for the use ofsource-normalized bibliometric indicators.

A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators