  Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers,
research groups and institutions with each other across time scales and
disciplines. Both factors - discipline and period - have an influence on the
citation count which is independent of the quality of the publication.
Normalizing the citation impact of papers for these two factors started in the
mid-1980s. Since then, a range of different methods have been presented for
producing normalized citation impact scores. The current study uses a data set
of over 50,000 records to test which of the methods so far presented correlate
better with the assessment of papers by peers. The peer assessments come from
F1000Prime - a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical
literature. Of the normalized indicators, the current study involves not only
cited-side indicators, such as the mean normalized citation score, but also
citing-side indicators. As the results show, the correlations of the indicators
with the peer assessments all turn out to be very similar. Since F1000 focuses
on biomedicine, it is important that the results of this study are validated by
other studies based on datasets from other disciplines or (ideally) based on
multi-disciplinary datasets.
