@article{9c12ee77b2ed4cffa363883f0d216ebc,
title = "Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)",
abstract = "We reproduce the article-level, field-independent citation metric Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) using the Scopus database, and extend it beyond the biomedical field to all subject areas. We compare the RCR to the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), also an article-level, field-normalised metric, and present the first results of correlations, distributions and application to research university benchmarking for both metrics. Our analyses demonstrate that FWCI and RCR of articles correlate with varying strengths across different areas of research. Additionally, we observe that both metrics are comparably stable across different subject areas of research. Moreover, at the level of universities, both metrics correlate strongly.",
keywords = "Article-level, Bibliometrics, Citation impact, Field-normalisation, Field-normalization, FWCI, RCR, Research metrics",
author = "Amrita Purkayastha and Eleonora Palmaro and Falk-Krzesinski, {Holly J.} and Jeroen Baas",
note = "Funding Information: Recently, Hutchins, Yuan, Anderson, and Santangelo (2016) published a new article-level, field-independent metric called the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), that they demonstrate to be correlated with expert opinion of influence measure for biomedical research. The authors make novel use of an article's cocitation network to field-normalise the number of citations it has received. The RCR of an article is calculated by dividing the number of citations the article received, by the expected number of citations of article. The expected number is derived by a quantile regression analysis of all articles funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), plotting the citations received by each article, against the field citation rate (FCR). FCR is determined by the average journal citation rate of articles in the same field. A critical discussion can be found in Waltman (2015) , Janssens, Goodman, Powell, and Gwinn (2017) and Bloudoff-Indelicato (2015) . Nonetheless, Bornmann and Haunschild (2017) found that the RCR correlates highly with three field-normalised indicators – the Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS), Citation Percentiles (CP) and source-normalized citation score 2 (SNCS 2 ) – for articles in biomedical research area. Our study builds on the recommendation therein to investigate RCR scores for publications in other areas of research, and compare the ability of RCR to field-normalise citation counts with that of other field-normalised indicators. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Copyright: Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.012",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "635--642",
journal = "Journal of Informetrics",
issn = "1751-1577",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",
}