Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?

摘要: Abstract Evaluative bibliometrics compare the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institutions with each other across time scales disciplines. Both factors, discipline period – have an influence on count which is independent quality publication. Normalizing papers for these two factors started in mid-1980s. Since then, a range different methods been presented producing normalized scores. The current study uses data set over 50,000 records to test so far correlate better assessment by peers. peer assessments come from F1000Prime post-publication review system biomedical literature. Of indicators, involves not only cited-side such as mean score, but also citing-side indicators. As results show, correlations indicators all turn out be very similar. F1000 focuses biomedicine, it important that this are validated studies based datasets disciplines or (ideally) multi-disciplinary datasets.