, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 325–344 | Cite as

Profiling citation impact: A new methodology

  • Jonathan AdamsEmail author
  • Karen Gurney
  • Stuart Marshall


A methodology for creating bibliometric impact profiles is described. The advantages of such profiles as a management tool to supplement the reporting power of traditional average impact metrics are discussed. The impact profile for the UK as a whole reveals the extent to which the median and modal UK impact values differ from and are significantly below average impact. Only one-third of UK output for 1995-2004 is above world average impact although the UK’s average world-normalised impact is 1.24.

Time-categorised impact profiles are used to test hypotheses about changing impact and confirm that the increase in average UK impact is due to real improvement rather than a reduction in low impact outputs.

The impact profile methodology has been applied across disciplines as well as years and is shown to work well in all subject categories. It reveals substantial variations in performance between disciplines. The value of calculating the profile median and mode as well as the average impact are demonstrated. Finally, the methodology is applied to a specific data-set to compare the impact profile of the elite Laboratory of Molecular Biology (Cambridge) with the relevant UK average. This demonstrates an application of the methodology by identifying where the institute’s exceptional performance is located.

The value of impact profiles lies in their role as an interpretive aid for non-specialists, not as a technical transformation of the data for scientometricians.


Citation Count World Average Citation Impact Average Impact Technology Indicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. (1998), Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396: 615–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ehrenberg, A. (1988), Repeat-buying: Facts, Theory and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. European Commission (2003), Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators. D G Research, Brussels. ISBN 92 894 1795 1.Google Scholar
  4. Evidence (2005), PSA Target Metrics for the UK Research Base. A report by Evidence Ltd for the Office of Science and Innovation.
  5. Feller, W. (1943), On a general class of ‘contagious’ distributions. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 14: 389–400.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Garfield, E. (1955), Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122: 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. King, D. A. (2004), The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430: 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leydesdorff, L., Bensman, S. (2006), Classification and powerlaws: the logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 1470–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. May, R. M. (1997), The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275: 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michelson, E. S. (2006), Approaches to research and development performance assessment in the United States. Science and Public Policy, 33: 546–560.Google Scholar
  11. Moed, H. F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 4020 3713 9.Google Scholar
  12. Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Price, D. de Solla (1965), The scientific foundations of science policy. Nature, 206: 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Savani, V., Zhigljavsky, A. (2006), Efficient estimation of parameters of the negative binomial distribution. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 35: 1–17.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Savani, V., Zhigljavsky, A., Efficient parameter estimation for independent and INAR(1) negative binomial samples. Metrika (in press a).Google Scholar
  16. Savani, V., Zhigljavsky, A., Asymptotic distributions of statistics and parameter estimates for mixed Poisson processes. (in press b).Google Scholar
  17. Small, H., Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics, 60 (2004) 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weingart, P. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62 (2005) 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., Bassecoulard, E., Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: from cross-field to cross-scale effects of field normalisation. Scientometrics, 63 (2005) 373–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Evidence LtdLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations