Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Percentile-Based Citation Impact (PPtop10%)/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

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

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Percentile-Based Citation Impact (PPtop10% and the Integrated Impact Indicator)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · 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
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

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.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

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

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto