-
Counting methods introduced into the bibliometric research literature 1970-2018: A review
Authors:
Marianne Gauffriau
Abstract:
The present review of bibliometric counting methods investigates 1) the number of unique counting methods in the bibliometric research literature, 2) to what extent the counting methods can be categorized according to selected characteristics of the counting methods, 3) methods and elements to assess the internal validity of the counting methods, and 4) to what extent and with which characteristic…
▽ More
The present review of bibliometric counting methods investigates 1) the number of unique counting methods in the bibliometric research literature, 2) to what extent the counting methods can be categorized according to selected characteristics of the counting methods, 3) methods and elements to assess the internal validity of the counting methods, and 4) to what extent and with which characteristics the counting methods are used in research evaluations.
The review identifies 32 counting methods introduced during the period 1981 - 2018. Two frameworks categorize these counting methods. Framework 1 describes selected mathematical properties of counting methods, and Framework 2 describes arguments for choosing a counting method. Twenty of the 32 counting methods are rank-dependent, fractionalized, and introduced to measure contribution, participation, etc. of an object of study. Next, three criteria for internal validity are used to identify five methods that test the adequacy of counting methods, two elements that test sensitivity, and three elements that test homogeneity of the counting methods. These methods and elements may be used to assess the internal validity of counting methods. Finally, a literature search finds research evaluations that use the counting methods. Only three of the 32 counting methods are used by four research evaluations or more. Of these three counting methods, two are used with the same characteristics as defined in the studies that introduced the counting methods.
The review provides practitioners in research evaluation and researchers in bibliometrics with a detailed foundation for working with counting methods. At the same time, many of the findings in the review provide bases for future investigations of counting methods.
△ Less
Submitted 9 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Validation of counting methods in bibliometrics
Authors:
Marianne Gauffriau
Abstract:
The discussion about counting methods in bibliometrics is often reduced to the choice between full and fractional counting. However, several studies document that this distinction is too simple. The aim of the present study is to give an overview of counting methods in the bibliometric literature and to provide insight into their properties and use. A mix of methods is used. In the preliminary res…
▽ More
The discussion about counting methods in bibliometrics is often reduced to the choice between full and fractional counting. However, several studies document that this distinction is too simple. The aim of the present study is to give an overview of counting methods in the bibliometric literature and to provide insight into their properties and use. A mix of methods is used. In the preliminary results, a literature review covering 1970-2018 identified 29 original counting methods. Seventeen were introduced in the period 2010-2018. Twenty-one of the 29 counting methods are rank-dependent and fractionalized meaning that the authors of a publications share 1 credit but do not receive equal shares, for example harmonic counting. The internal and external validation of the counting methods are assessed. Three criteria for well-constructed bibliometric indicators - adequacy, sensitivity, and homogeneity - are used to assess the internal validity. Regarding the external validation of the counting methods, it is investigated whether the intentions in the studies that introduced the 29 counting methods comply with the subsequent use of the counting methods. This study has the potential to give a solid foundation for the use of and discussion about counting methods.
△ Less
Submitted 22 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
A categorization of arguments for counting methods for publication and citation indicators
Authors:
Marianne Gauffriau
Abstract:
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and compared the result with disc…
▽ More
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and compared the result with discussions of arguments for counting methods in three older studies. Based on the underlying logics of the arguments I have arranged the arguments in four groups. Group 1 focuses on arguments related to what an indicator measures, Group 2 on the additivity of a counting method, Group 3 on pragmatic reasons for the choice of counting method, and Group 4 on an indicator's influence on the research community or how it is perceived by researchers. This categorization can be used to describe and discuss how bibliometric studies with publication and citation indicators argue for counting methods.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2017; v1 submitted 8 October, 2016;
originally announced October 2016.
