🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Pilot corpus: NIH-funded biomedical datasets. Any DOI can be scored on demand — network effects sharpen as coverage grows.

Field Normalization of Scientometric Indicators

Springer Handbooks(2019)10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_11Source: DataRank Database

Field Normalization of Scientometric Indicators is a research paper published in Springer Handbooks (2019). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.6. It has been cited 50 times, with 14 citing works in its 1-hop citation network.

N/A
1.6DataRank · unranked

Scored on demand from live citation data

Open Access50 citations · 14 citing works in its network
Download PDF
Cite:

DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?

›Methodology & internals
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:OA: greenIDs (PubMed)

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (0/3)

      FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

      Run a calibrated FAIR evaluation for this paper →

      We only score data papers we can read in full — never from an abstract alone.

      DataRank Breakdown

      Base Score 36%Citation Network 64%

      Base Score Contribution

      0.590

      From this paper's citation signal

      Citation Network Contribution

      1.0

      From 13 citing papers with measurable signal

      Learn more about DataRank methodology →

      Authors (2)

      Nees Jan van EckORCID,Ludo WaltmanORCID
      Live enrichment
      PubMed:21097893

      green
      repositoryhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.09985
      repositoryhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.09985.pdf
      repositoryhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1801.09985

      Related Papers (10)

      Macro-Indicators of Citation Impacts of Six Prolific Countries: InCites Data and the Statistical Significance of Trends
      Top 6%
      3.5DataRank
      PLoS ONE(2013)
      co-cited
      10.1371/journal.pone.0056768
      Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison
      N/A
      6.3DataRank · unranked
      Scientometrics(2012)
      co-cited
      10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4
      Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics
      N/A
      1.1DataRank · unranked
      Nature(2015)
      co-cited
      10.1038/520429a
      An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better
      N/A
      0.538DataRank · unranked
      Scientometrics(2020)
      co-cited
      10.1007/s11192-020-03512-7
      Comparing journal and paper level classifications of science
      N/A
      4.5DataRank · unranked
      Journal of Informetrics(2019)
      co-cited
      10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.005
      The geography of references in elite articles: Which countries contribute to the archives of knowledge?
      N/A
      1.5DataRank · unranked
      PLOS ONE(2018)
      co-cited
      10.1371/journal.pone.0194805
      The causal intricacies of studying gender bias in science
      N/A
      0.156DataRank · unranked
      (2020)
      co-cited
      10.59350/dh1hs-zfn62
      Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize
      N/A
      4.7DataRank · unranked
      PLOS Biology(2016)
      co-cited
      10.1371/journal.pbio.1002542
      How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study
      N/A
      5.4DataRank · unranked
      Scientometrics(2014)
      co-cited
      10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8
      The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations
      N/A
      4.4DataRank · unranked
      Journal of Informetrics(2014)
      co-cited
      10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002