Abstract:Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics to normalize observed citation counts. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set, whereby the fraction of papers at or below the citation counts of a focal paper is used as an indicator for its relative citation impact in the set. In this study, we pursue two related objectives: (1) although different percentile-based approaches have been developed, an approach is hitherto missing that satisfies a number of criteria such as scaling of the percentile ranks from zero (all other papers perform better) to 100 (all other papers perform worse), and solving the problem with tied citation ranks unambiguously. We introduce a new citation-rank approach having these properties, namely P100. (2) We compare the reliability of P100 empirically with other percentile-based approaches, such as the approaches developed by the SCImago group, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), and Thomson Reuters (InCites), using all papers published in 1980 in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). How accurately can the different approaches predict the long-term citation impact in 2010 (in year 31) using citation impact measured in previous time windows (years 1 to 30)? The comparison of the approaches shows that the method used by InCites overestimates citation impact (because of using the highest percentile rank when papers are assigned to more than a single subject category) whereas the SCImago indicator shows higher power in predicting the long-term citation impact on the basis of citation rates in early years. Since the results show a disadvantage in this predictive ability for P100 against the other approaches, there is still room for further improvements.

Lifting the crown—citation z-score

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

The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

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

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

An indicator of the impact of journals based on the percentage of their highly cited publications

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

Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents

More Precise Methods for National Research Citation Impact Comparisons

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

Comparison of the Effect of Mean-Based Method and Z-Score for Field Normalization of Citations at the Level of Web of Science Subject Categories

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

Return on citation: a consistent metric to evaluate papers, journals and researchers

Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: a new index for evaluating article impact

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

An indicator of journal impact that is based on calculating a journal's percentage of highly cited publications

Two indicators rule them all: Mean and standard deviation used to calculate other journal indicators based on log-normal distribution of citation counts

Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents

A field- and time-normalized Bayesian approach to measuring the impact of a publication

Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100)

Non-cumulative measures of researcher citation impact