Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database
Eugene Garfield, always insisted that citation analysis “can be used wisely or abused” and that it is “up to the scientific community to prevent abuse of the SCI by devoting the necessary attention to its proper and judicious exploitation” (Garfield in Nat 227:669–671, 1970). Dedicated to his memory, this paper aim to assess the significance of a parameter that is seldom taken into account in evaluation studies: the existence of a USA comparative citation (visibility) advantage built in the database and thus affecting countries that collaborate more with the USA than with other countries. We analyze how this USA citation advantage affects the measure of the scientific impact (usually measured through citations received) of major countries. The main conclusion coming out of this study is that, given the strong presence of the USA in the WoS database, the comparative rankings tend, by construction, to give a citation advantage to countries having the closest relation to that country.
KeywordsEvaluation Database Biased indicators Bibliometrics Rankings
- Basken, P. (2016). As concerns grows about using data to measure faculty, a company changes its message. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 October 2016. http://www.chronicle.com/article/As-Concerns-Grow-About-Using/238034.
- European Commission. (2014). Research and innovation performance in EU member states and associated countries. Union progress at country level. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Olmeda-Gomez, C., & de Moya-Anegon, F. (2013). Quantifiying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 392–404.Google Scholar
- Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). The impact factor’s Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 424–427.Google Scholar
- Larivière, V., GingraS, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences. Social Sciences and the Humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.Google Scholar
- National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Öquist, G., & Benner, M. (2015). Why are some nations more successful than others in research impact? A comparison between Denmark and Sweden. In I. Welpe et al. (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 241–257). Springer: Governance of Research Organizations.Google Scholar
- Witze, A. (2016). Research gets increasingly international. Nature News, 19 January 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/research-gets-increasingly-international-1.19198.