Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Percentile-Based Citation Impact (PPtop10%)/Evidence
Method evidence record

Percentile-Based Citation Impact (PPtop10%)

Percentile-based citation impact replaces the average citation count with a paper's rank position within a properly defined reference set. Instead of asking how many citations a paper received, it asks where the paper falls in the citation distribution of comparable papers from the same field, year, and document type. Because citation distributions are extremely skewed, a single highly cited paper can inflate a mean, so Lutz Bornmann and Loet Leydesdorff argued that impact should be measured non-parametrically through percentile ranks and the share of papers reaching the top of their field. The most widely used summary is PPtop10%, the proportion of a unit's papers that belong to the most-cited 10% of their reference set; Leydesdorff and Bornmann's Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) generalizes this idea by integrating the full percentile curve. Ludo Waltman and Michael Schreiber clarified how percentile ranks should be computed when many papers share the same citation count.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Percentile-Based Citation Impact (PPtop10% and the Integrated Impact Indicator)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / bibliometrics
  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2133-2146. · DOI 10.1002/asi.21609
  • Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372-379. · DOI 10.1002/asi.22775
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyEigenfactor and Article Influence Scoremachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyImmediacy Indexmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familySource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)machine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account