It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
This is a Snowball Metric. For more information on Snowball Metrics, click here.
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
Field-Weighted Citation Impact takes into account the differences in research behavior across disciplines.
Sourced from SciVal, this metric indicates how the number of citations received by a researchers publications compares with the average number of citations received by all other similar publications indexed in the Scopus database.
A Field-Weighted Citation Impact of 1.00 indicates that the publications have been cited at world average for similar publications.
A Field-Weighted Citation Impact of greater than 1.00 indicates that the publications have been cited more than would be expected based on the world average for similar publications, for example a score of 1.44 means that the outputs have been cited 44% more times than expected.
A Field-Weighted Citation Impact of less than 1.00 indicates that the publications have been cited less that would be expected based on the world average for similar publications, for example a score of 0.85 means 15% less cited than world average.
Similar publications are those publications in the Scopus database that have the same publication year, publication type and discipline.
Field-Weighted Citation Impact refers to citations received in the year of publication plus the following 3 years.
Field-Weighted Citation Impact metrics are useful to benchmark regardless of differences in size, disciplinary profile, age and publication type composition, and provide and useful way to evaluate the prestige of a researcher’s citation performance.
The most common tools for calculating Field-Weighted Citation Impact are...