Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract To date, there has not been any definitive statement for bibliometric analyses from the scientific community as to how long to make the period for analysis in order to guarantee the maximum possible validity of citation analyses. Up to now, it has been particularly unclear as to whether different disciplines and citation indicators have any effect on what period for analysis to select. This is why this study aims to provide answers to these issues. Therefore, publications in the fields of business studies, biology, and medicine from 2007 to 2009 are surveyed. The citations from ten separate consecutive citation periods from 2009 up to 2018 are generated for these publications from Web of Science and selected citation indicators are calculated for them. The results show that the fundamental validity of citation indicators increases with time. However, if the goal of the analyses is to establish a ranking order, then even short citation periods are informative. Our results are stable in terms of the disciplines, although differences do occur in the citation indicators under consideration.
Clermont et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: