Sample size in bibliometric analysis.

Autor/inn/en	Rogers, Gordon; Szomszor, Martin; Adams, Jonathan
Titel	Sample size in bibliometric analysis.
Quelle	In: Scientometrics, (2020) 1, S.777-794 PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0138-9130
DOI	10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7
Schlagwörter	Bibliometric sampling; CNCI; Citation impact; Research assessment; University ranking
Abstract	Abstract While bibliometric analysis is normally able to rely on complete publication sets this is not universally the case. For example, Australia (in ERA) and the UK (in the RAE/REF) use institutional research assessment that may rely on small or fractional parts of researcher output. Using the Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) for the publications of ten universities with similar output (21,000–28,000 articles and reviews) indexed in the Web of Science for 2014–2018, we explore the extent to which a ‘sample’ of institutional data can accurately represent the averages and/or the correct relative status of the population CNCIs. Starting with full institutional data, we find a high variance in average CNCI across 10,000 institutional samples of fewer than 200 papers, which we suggest may be an analytical minimum although smaller samples may be acceptable for qualitative review. When considering the ‘top’ CNCI paper in researcher sets represented by DAIS-ID clusters, we find that samples of 1000 papers provide a good guide to relative (but not absolute) institutional citation performance, which is driven by the abundance of high performing individuals. However, such samples may be perturbed by scarce ‘highly cited’ papers in smaller or less research-intensive units. We draw attention to the significance of this for assessment processes and the further evidence that university rankings are innately unstable and generally unreliable.
Erfasst von	OLC
Update	2023/2/05