{"doi":"10.1007/s11192-019-03071-6","title":"How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators","abstract":"Abstract Recently, the integrated impact indicator (I3) was introduced where citations are weighted in accordance with the percentile rank class of each publication in a set of publications. I3 can also be used as a field-normalized indicator. Field-normalization is common practice in bibliometrics, especially when institutions and countries are compared. Publication and citation practices are so different among fields that citation impact is normalized for cross-field comparisons. In this study, we test the ability of the indicator to discriminate between quality levels of papers as defined by Faculty members at F1000Prime. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system for assessing papers in the biomedical area. Thus, we test the convergent validity of I3 (in this study, we test I3/N—the size-independent variant of I3 where I3 is divided by the number of papers) using assessments by peers as baseline and compare its validity with several other (field-normalized) indicators: the mean-normalized citation score, relative-citation ratio, citation score normalized by cited references, characteristic scores and scales, source-normalized citation score, citation percentile, and proportion of papers which belong to the x% most frequently cited papers (PPtop x%). The results show that the PPtop 1% indicator discriminates best among different quality levels. I3 performs similar as (slightly better than) most of the other field-normalized indicators. Thus, the results point out that the indicator could be a valuable alternative to other indicators in bibliometrics.","journal":"Scientometrics","year":2019,"id":3132,"datarank":0.3596842909197557,"base_score":2.3978952727983707,"endowment":2.3978952727983707,"self_citation_contribution":0.3596842909197557,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.3596842909197557,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":10,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":0.0493,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2019-03-21","fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":4556,"name":"Alexander Tekles","orcid":"0000-0001-8765-9331","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":663,"name":"Loet Leydesdorff","orcid":"0000-0002-7835-3098","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":661,"name":"Lutz Bornmann","orcid":"0000-0003-0810-7091","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":61,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-03-01T18:20:47.508186Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}