Abstract:Citation networks have fed numerous works in scientific evaluation, science mapping (and more recently large-scale network studies) for decades. The variety of citation behavior across scientific fields is both a research topic in sociology of science, and a problem in scientific evaluation. Normalization, tantamount to a particular weighting of links in the citation network, is necessary for allowing across-field comparisons of citation scores and interdisciplinary studies. In addition to classical normalization which drastically reduces all variability factors altogether, two tracks of research have emerged in the recent years. One is the revival of iterative "influence measures". The second is the "citing-side" normalization, whose only purpose is to control for the main factor of variability, the inequality in citing propensity, letting other aspects play: knowledge export/imports and growth. When all variables are defined at the same field-level, two propositions are established: (a) the gross impact measure identifies with the product of relative growth rate, gross balance of citation exchanges, and relative number of references (b) the normalized impact identifies with the product of relative growth rate and normalized balance. At the science level, the variance of growth rate over domains is a proxy for change in the system, and the variance of balance a measure of inter-disciplinary dependences. This opens a new perspective, where the resulting variance of normalized impact, and a related measure, the sum of these variances proposed as a Change-Exchange Indicator, summarize important aspects of science structure and dynamism. Results based on a decade's data are discussed. The behavior of normalized impact according to scale changes is also briefly discussed.

Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields

Normalization at the Field Level: Fractional Counting of Citations

Caveats for the Journal and Field Normalizations in the CWTS (“leiden”) Evaluations of Research Performance

Remaining Problems with the "new Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS.

Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documents

Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs

How to Evaluate Universities in Terms of Their Relative Citation Impacts: Fractional Counting of Citations and the Normalization of Differences among Disciplines

How Fractional Counting of Citations Affects the Impact Factor: Normalization in Terms of Differences in Citation Potentials among Fields of Science

How fractional counting affects the Impact Factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science

How Can Journal Impact Factors Be Normalized Across Fields of Science? an Assessment in Terms of Percentile Ranks and Fractional Counts

Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator

Citation impacts revisited: how novel impact measures reflect interdisciplinarity and structural change at the local and global level

Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations

Alternatives to the Journal Impact Factor: I3 and the Top-10% (or Top-25%?) of the Most-Highly Cited Papers

A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators

Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: An option for cross- and interdisciplinary assessments

Lifting the crown—citation z-score

On the normalization and distributional adjustment of journal ranking metrics: A simple parametric approach

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

A Comment to the Paper by Waltman Et Al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

The Operationalization of "Fields" as WoS Subject Categories (WCs) in Evaluative Bibliometrics: The cases of "Library and Information Science" and "Science & Technology Studies"