Making the impact of publications within a field comparable by improving the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI): the case of sport management

Abstract

Abstract The Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) is a metric at the publication level which is standardized across fields. It has obvious advantages over other frequently used metrics, but might also suffer from some potential limitations, raising issues about its reliability. This paper investigates one limitation—the use of different All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) Codes in Scopus for journals from the same field, meaning they may not be assessed against the same benchmark (average citations per article)—and suggests a potential improvement, relative to sport management, which was selected as an exemplar field. A four-step approach was applied: first, identifying sport management journals based on Scimago similarities (percentage of cited publications shared between journals, i.e., shared interests); second, mapping these journals against their different ASJC Codes; third, comparing the different ASJC Codes versus Scimago similarities; fourth, analyzing the consequence of the different ASJC Codes on FWCI. Based on Scimago similarities, 15 sport management journals were identified. They represent 15 different ASJC Codes. Overall, the ASJC Codes are not representative of Scimago similarities. The consequence is that, despite shared interests, sport management journals are not assessed against the same benchmark in the calculation of FWCI. The discussion considers why and how big the issue is. A potential improvement to the FWCI is then suggested: to use Scimago similarities rather than ASJC Codes to determine a field. The paper concludes that the FWCI is superior to other widespread metrics, while acknowledging some remaining issues not addressed by the indicator and its potential improvement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.