Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method

• We study the connection between field normalization and counting methods.
• Our focus is on the choice between full and fractional counting.
• We argue that full counting results are not properly field normalized.
• Fractional counting does yield properly field-normalized results.
• We present a large-scale empirical comparison between full and fractional counting.

Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method for handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choice between full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensive theoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalized results cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting does provide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recommend the use of fractional counting in bibliometric studies that require field normalization, especially in studies at the level of countries and research organizations. We also compare different variants of fractional counting. In general, it seems best to use either the author-level or the address-level variant of fractional counting.