Tracking changes in CNCI: the complementarity of standard, collaboration and fractional CNCI in understanding and evaluating research performance

Using a global set of ~ 300 institutions, standard, collaboration and fractional Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) indicators are compared between 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate the complementarity of the three variants for research evaluation. Web of Science data show that Chinese institutions appear immune to the indicator used as CNCI changes, generally improvements, are similar for all three variants. Other regions tend to show greater increases in standard CNCI over collaboration CNCI, which in turn is greater than fractional CNCI; however, decreases in CNCI values, particularly in established research economies like North America and western Europe are not uncommon. These findings may highlight the differing extent to which the number of collaborating countries and institutions on papers affect each variant. Other factors affecting CNCI values may be citation practices and hiring of Highly Cited Researchers. Evaluating and comparing the performance of institutions is a main driver of policy, research and funding direction. Decision makers must understand all aspects of CNCI indicators, including the secondary factors illustrated here, by using a ‘profiles not metrics’ approach.