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

Field-normalization of citations is bibliometric standard. Despite theobserved differences in citation counts between fields, the question remainshow strong fields influence citation rates beyond the effect of attributes orfactors possibly influencing citations (FICs). We considered several FICs suchas number of pages and number of co-authors in this study. We wondered whetherthere is a separate field-effect besides other effects (e.g., from numbers ofpages and co-authors). To find an answer on the question in this study, weapplied inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPW). Using Web of Sciencedata (a sample of 308,231 articles), we investigated whether mean differencesamong subject categories in citation rates still remain, even if the subjectcategories are made comparable in the field-related attributes (e.g.,comparable of co-authors, comparable number of pages) by IPW. In a diagnosticstep of our statistical analyses, we considered propensity scores as covariatesin regression analyses to examine whether the differences between the fields inFICs vanish. The results revealed that the differences did not completelyvanish but were strongly reduced. We received similar results when wecalculated mean value differences of the fields after IPW representing thecausal or unconfounded field effects on citations. However, field differencesin citation rates remain. The results point out that field-normalization seemsto be a prerequisite for citation analysis and cannot be replaced by theconsideration of any set of FICs in citation analyses.

Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching