, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 165–188 | Cite as

Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
  • Bart Thijs
  • András Schubert
  • Koenraad Debackere


A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.


Citation Rate Citation Impact Relative Indicator Citation Window Research Profile 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J., K. Gurney, L. Jackson (2008). Calibrating the zoom - a test of Zitt’s hypothesis, Scientometrics, 75(1): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, T., W. Glänzel, A. Schubert (1985), Scientometric Indicators. A 32-Country Comparison of Publication Productivity and Citation Impact. World Scientific, Singapore - Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, T., W. Glänzel (1990), United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5–6): 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duda, R. O., P. E. Hart (1973), Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Glänzel, W., A. Telcs, A. Schubert (1984), Characterization by truncated moments and its application to Pearson-type distributions. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 66: 173–183. (Correction: Probability Theory and Related Fields, 74 (1987) 317.)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W., A. Schubert (1988), Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. Journal of Information Science, 14: 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glänzel, W., A. Schubert (1992), Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981–1985, Scientometrics, 25(3): 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glänzel, W. (1997), On the reliability of predictions based on stochastic citation processes, Scientometrics, 40(3): 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W. (2000), Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach, Scientometrics, 48(2): 121–150. (Correction: Scientometrics, 49 (2) (2000) 357)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., A. schubert (2003), A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes, Scientometrics, 56(3): 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W. (2007), Characteristic scores and scales. A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation, Journal of Informetrics, 1(1): 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W. (2008), On some new bibliometric applications of statistics related to the h-index, Scientometrics, 76(3) forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  13. Leta, J., W. Glänzel, B. Thijs (2006), Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles, Scientometrics, 67(1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moed, H. F., R. E. De Bruin, Th. N. Van Leeuwen (1995), New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications, Scientometrics, 33(3): 381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moed, H. F. (1996), Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first over view, Scientometrics, 35(2): 177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Price, D. J. De Solla (1976), A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5–6): 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. REIST-2 (1997), The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 1997. EUR 17639. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. Schubert, A., W. Glänzel (1983), Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publications, Scientometrics, 5(1): 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schubert, A., T. Braun (1986), Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative-assessment of publication output and citation impact, Scientometrics, 9(5–6): 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schubert, A., W. Glänzel, T. Braun (1989), Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major fields and subfields 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 16(1–6): 3–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schubert, A., W. Glänzel (2007), A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals, Journal of Informetrics, 1(3): 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tague, J. M. (1981), The success-breeds-success phenomenon and bibliometric processes, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(4): 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thijs, B., W. Glänzel (2008), A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes, Scientometrics, 74(2): 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thijs, B., W. Glänzel (2009), A structural analysis of benchmarks on different bibliometric indicators for European research institutes based on their research profile, Scientometrics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  25. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006a) Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3): 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. VVan Raan, A. F. J. (2006b), Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups, Scientometrics, 67(3): 491–502.Google Scholar
  27. Vinkler. P. (1986), Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications, Scientometrics, 10(3–4): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zitt, M., S. Ramanana-Rahary, E. Bassecoulard (2005), Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation, Scientometrics, 63(2): 373–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bart Thijs
    • 1
  • András Schubert
    • 2
  • Koenraad Debackere
    • 1
  1. 1.Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren, Dept. MSIKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Institute for Research Policy StudiesHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations