View by category
Back to all metricsField-Weighted Views Impact indicates how the number of views received by an entity’s publications compares with the average number of views received by all other similar publications in the same data universe: how do the views received by this entity’s publications compare with the world average for that database?
Similar publications are those publications in the database that have the same publication year, publication type, and discipline, as represented by the Scopus classification system.
- A Field-Weighted Views Impact of 1.00 indicates that the entity’s publications have been viewed exactly as would be expected based on the global average for similar publications in the same database; the Field-Weighted Views Impact of “World”, that is, the entire Scopus database, is 1.00.
- A Field-Weighted Views Impact of more than 1.00 indicates that the entity’s publications have been viewed more than would be expected based on the global average for similar publications in the same database; for example, 3.87 means 287% more views than world average within the same database.
- A Field-Weighted Views Impact of less than 1.00 indicates that the entity’s publications have been viewed less than would be expected based on the global average for similar publications in the same database; for example, 0.55 means 45% fewer views than world average within the same database.
- Publications can be allocated to more than one category in the Scopus classification system. When we calculate the expected views for similar publications, it is important that these multi-category publications do not exert too much weight; for example, if a publication P belongs to both parasitology and microbiology, it should not have double the influence of a publication that belongs to only one or the other of these. This is accounted for in this metric calculation by distributing publication and views counts equally across multiple categories; publication P would be counted as 0.5 publications for each of parasitology and microbiology, and its views would also be shared equally between them.
Field-Weighted Views Impact is a:
- Usage Impact metric
Field-Weighted Views Impact may be displayed in a chart or table with months and/or years:
- In SciVal, the year shows the date on which items became available online, this may be different to the official publication date. They do not refer to the years in which publications were viewed
- Benchmark entities regardless of differences in their size, disciplinary profile, age, and publication-type composition, such as an institution and departments within that institution
- Easily understand the prestige of an entity’s usage performance by observing the extent to which its Field-Weighted Views Impact is above or below the world average of 1.00
- Present usage data in a way that inherently takes into account the lower number of views received by relatively recent publications, thus avoiding the dip in recent years seen with Views Count and Views per Publication
- Gain insight into the usage performance of an entity in a discipline with relatively poor database coverage, since gaps in the database will apply equally to the entity’s publications and to the set of similar publications
- Use as a default to view usage data, since it considers multiple variables that can affect other metrics
- Give an early indication of the interest in output that has recently become available, for example in the very early stages of a new strategy, or of early-career researchers
- Showcase the engagement of the whole research community, and not only of the two-thirds who publish and therefore cite. The one-third which does not tend to publish includes large numbers of undergraduate and graduate students, as well as researchers operating in the corporate sector.
- Demonstrate interest in output produced in disciplines with low citation potential, such as clinical research and the arts and humanities that are generally well read but poorly cited
- Information about the magnitude of the number of views received by an entity’s publications is important. In these situations, it is advised to use Views Count or Views per Publication.
- Demonstrating excellent performance to those who prefer to see high numbers; Views Count or Views per Publication would be more suitable in these circumstances
- Entities are small, such that the metric may fluctuate significantly and appear unstable over time, even when there is complete database coverage. Field-Weighted Views Impact calculates an average value, and is strongly influenced by outlying publications in a small data set.
- Trust needs to be built in research metrics. This calculation accounts for multiple normalizations, and the generation of the average views for similar publications requires calculations on the entire database which will be difficult for a user to validate. Users are advised to select simpler metrics, such as Views Count or Views per Publication, if trust in the accuracy of the metrics calculations needs to be built.
- Completely answering every question about performance from a usage perspective. Field-Weighted Views Impact is a very useful metric and accounts for several variables, but using it to the exclusion of other metrics severely restricts the richness and reliability of information that a user can draw on.
- Views Countopens in new tab/window and Views per Publicationopens in new tab/window. They indicate the magnitude of the number of views received, to complement the relative view offered by Field-Weighted Views Impact. They are also simple and allow transparency on the underlying data to build trust in the accuracy of metric calculations.
Did we answer your question?
Related answers
Recently viewed answers
Functionality disabled due to your cookie preferences