|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Lutz Bornmann; Klaus Wohlrabe |
| Abstract: | This study is intended to facilitate fair research evaluations in economics. Field- and time-normalization of citation impact is the standard method in bibliometrics. Since citation rates for journal papers differ substantially across publication years and Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification codes, citation rates should be normalized for the comparison of papers across different time periods and economic subfields. Without normalization, both factors that are independent of research quality bias the results of citation analyses. We introduce two normalized indicators in economics, which are the most important indicators in bibliometrics: (1) the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) compares the citation impact of a focal paper with the mean impact of similar papers published in the same economic subfield and publication year. (2) PPtop 50% is the share of papers that belong to the above-average half in a certain subfield and time period. Since the MNCS is based on arithmetic averages despite skewed citation distributions, we recommend using PPtop 50% for fair comparisons of entities in economics (e.g. researchers, institutions, or countries). In this study, we apply the method to 294 journals (including normalized scores for 192,524 papers) by assigning them to four citation impact classes and identifying 33 outstandingly cited economics journals. |
| Keywords: | bibliometrics, citations, JEL codes, journal ranking, mean normalized citation score (MNCS), citation percentile, PPtop 50% |
| JEL: | A11 A12 A14 |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6592&r=sog |
| By: | Iaria, Alessandro; Schwarz, Carlo; Waldinger, Fabian |
| Abstract: | We show that WWI and the subsequent boycott against Central scientists severely interrupted international scientific cooperation. After 1914, citations to recent research from abroad decreased and paper titles became less similar (evaluated by Latent Semantic Analysis), suggesting a reduction in international knowledge flows. Reduced international scientific cooperation led to a decline in the production of basic science and its application in new technology. Specifically, we compare productivity changes for scientists who relied on frontier research from abroad, to changes for scientists who relied on frontier research from home. After 1914, scientists who relied on frontier research from abroad published fewer papers in top scientific journals, produced less Nobel Prize-nominated research, introduced fewer novel scientific words, and introduced fewer novel words that appeared in the text of subsequent patent grants. The productivity of scientists who relied on top 1% research declined twice as much as the productivity of scientists who relied on top 3% research. Furthermore, highly prolific scientists experienced the starkest absolute productivity declines. This suggests that access to the very best research is key for scientific and technological progress. |
| JEL: | I23 J44 N3 N30 N4 N40 O3 O31 O5 |
| Date: | 2017–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:12383&r=sog |