  Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact
indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss
the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method
for handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choice
between full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensive
theoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalized
results cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting does
provide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recommend the
use of fractional counting in bibliometric studies that require field
normalization, especially in studies at the level of countries and research
organizations. We also compare different variants of fractional counting. In
general, it seems best to use either the author-level or the address-level
variant of fractional counting.
