  We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best
be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different
scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical
analysis, we compare a traditional normalization approach based on a field
classification system with three source normalization approaches. We pay
special attention to the selection of the publications included in the
analysis. Publications in national scientific journals, popular scientific
magazines, and trade magazines are not included. Unlike earlier studies, we use
algorithmically constructed classification systems to evaluate the different
normalization approaches. Our analysis shows that a source normalization
approach based on the recently introduced idea of fractional citation counting
does not perform well. Two other source normalization approaches generally
outperform the classification-system-based normalization approach that we
study. Our analysis therefore offers considerable support for the use of
source-normalized bibliometric indicators.
