Understanding FCR and RCR: Methodology and Applications

Modified on: Fri, 1 Nov, 2024 at 2:22 PM

In the realm of academic research evaluation, bibliometric indicators play a crucial role in quantifying the impact and reach of scholarly work. Two such metrics are the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) and the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Both are designed to provide nuanced insights into the influence of scientific publications, but they differ in methodology, interpretation, and application. This synopsis aims to explore the calculation, limitations, and the contexts in which these citation measures are most effectively used.

1. Field Citation Ratio (FCR)

1.1 Definition and Purpose

The FCR quantifies the citation impact of a publication relative to the average citation impact within its field. By normalizing citation counts by Fields of Research (FoR) category, the FCR allows for a fairer comparison of citation impact across different subject areas. This is particularly useful in interdisciplinary studies, where raw citation counts might distort the true impact of a publication. Furthermore, the FCR normalizes citation counts by publication year, and therefore adjusts for the additional citations a publication is able to accrue over longer time periods.

A FCR of 1.0 indicates that the publication has been cited at the expected rate, based on the global average for similar publications. Values above 1.0 suggest higher-than-average impact, while values below 1.0 indicate lower-than-average impact.

1.2. Methodology

The calculation of FCR involves several steps:

Field Assignment: Each publication is assigned to one or more research fields based on the journals where it is published.

Expected Citation Calculation: For each field, the average citation rate is calculated using a global dataset of relevant publications.

Normalization: The actual citation count of the publication is divided by the expected citation count for that field and for the same publication year, resulting in the FCR.

A black text on a white background

Description automatically generated

Interpretation: FCR is useful for identifying high-impact papers in their respective fields. It enables comparison across disciplines and fields, making it possible to measure citation influence without the bias of field-specific citation norms.

1.3. Limitations

Data Requirements: The publication must be at least two years old, have at least one citation, and be assigned to a specific Field of Research (FoR) category.

Scope: The FCR is only calculated for publications from the year 2000 onwards.

Additionally, the FCR may not fully capture the nuanced impact of publications in niche fields where citation practices are less robust, or in emerging areas where citation norms are still developing.

2. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)

2.1. Definition and Purpose

The RCR is a metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to evaluate the influence of a publication relative to others in its field, accounting for field-specific citation trends. Unlike the Field Citation Rate (FCR), which relies on predefined fields, the RCR is calculated using a dynamic set of publications within a co-citation network, allowing it to adapt to the evolving nature of scientific research.

2.2. Methodology

The RCR is calculated as follows:

Co-Citation Network: A co-citation network is a group of publications frequently cited together with the target publication, which helps establish its context within the broader scientific discourse. For each publication, a co-citation network is constructed, consisting of publications cited alongside the target publication.

Benchmark Calculation: The citation rate of the target publication is compared to the median citation rate of relevant publications, often including NIH-funded papers, within the co-citation network.

Normalization: The RCR is then normalized so that an RCR of 1.0 represents a publication with median citation performance.

A black text on a white background

Description automatically generated

This approach allows the RCR to dynamically reflect the context of a publication without being constrained by static field definitions.

Interpretation: RCR allows for cross-disciplinary comparison by placing publications within their citation context. It offers a valuable gauge of research performance relative to a cohort of relevant publications, often including NIH-funded papers, making it useful in grant evaluations and institutional reviews.

2.3. Limitations

Data Requirements: The publication must be at least two years old, indexed in PubMed, and have at least one citation.

Field Dependency: While primarily designed for biomedical research, RCR can be applied in other fields as well but may have limited applicability outside biomedical contexts.

3. Uses of FCR and RCR

Researcher Evaluation: Both FCR and RCR help in evaluating the performance of individual researchers or groups, making them useful tools for tenure reviews, funding applications, and performance assessments.

Grant Applications: Funders can use these metrics to assess the citation impact of applicants' past research, aiding in decisions on future funding. For example, funding agencies may use FCR and RCR scores to prioritize high-impact researchers for competitive grants, particularly when comparing candidates from different research areas.

Institutional Rankings: Universities and research institutions use FCR and RCR as part of their overall assessment of research output and quality, helping them benchmark their researchers' performance against national and global peers. For instance, institutions may use FCR and RCR data in internal assessments or to benchmark their research output against national or international peers, helping guide strategic investments in research programs.

Bibliometric Analysis: These metrics are helpful for bibliometric studies aimed at understanding trends in citation practices, field-specific impact, and the interdisciplinary reach of certain research areas.

4. Conclusion

In summary, FCR and RCR provide essential tools for researchers, institutions, and funding agencies alike. By offering distinct yet complementary insights into publication impact—whether across disciplines with FCR or within specific research contexts through RCR—these metrics contribute significantly to the ongoing assessment and improvement of research quality. Their application can help drive strategic decision-making in grant allocations, tenure reviews, and institutional rankings, ensuring that scholarly contributions are evaluated fairly and consistently.

Understanding these metrics' methodologies, strengths, and limitations is crucial for their effective use in research evaluation and strategic decision-making.

For more detailed information on these metrics, visit:

FCR Calculations

RCR Calculations

Limitations of Metrics