Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A bibliometric analyst reports FWCI with confidence intervals and the underlying article count.
- Is an instance
A funder uses FWCI as one input among several in portfolio-level analysis, not in individual decisions.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
Comparing FWCI of two researchers with very different output counts as if statistically equivalent.
- Not an instance
Setting FWCI > 1.0 as a hiring threshold.
Editorial commentary
FWCI was developed to enable comparison of citation performance across disciplines and time. An FWCI of 1.5 means an article has received 50% more citations than the average of comparable items globally. While field normalisation is methodologically preferable to raw counts or unnormalised journal metrics, FWCI still inherits database-dependence (Scopus coverage), classification assumptions (the field categorisation used as denominator) and aggregation pitfalls when averaged at researcher or institution level. Responsible-metrics guidance recommends FWCI be reported alongside underlying counts, with sample-size caveats.
References
- Elsevier SciVal documentation. Waltman L 'A review of the literature on citation impact indicators' Journal of Informetrics 2016.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an FWCI score of 1.0 mean?
An FWCI of 1.00 is exactly the world average for that field, publication year and document type. A score of 1.5 means the output received 50% more citations than that global benchmark, while a score below 1.0 indicates fewer citations than the average of comparable items.
Why is FWCI calculated by field rather than as a raw citation count?
Citation rates vary widely between disciplines and document types, so a raw citation count would favor fields and formats that publish and cite more heavily over those that don't. FWCI was developed specifically to normalize for this, enabling comparison of citation performance across disciplines and time using a common benchmark of comparable items.
Is FWCI based on Scopus data specifically?
Yes. FWCI is calculated from Elsevier's Scopus database via SciVal, and this database-dependence is one of the metric's acknowledged limitations: its results reflect Scopus coverage rather than a universal citation index.
What are the main limitations of FWCI?
FWCI inherits database-dependence tied to Scopus coverage, the classification assumptions built into whichever field categorisation is used as the denominator, and aggregation pitfalls when scores are averaged up to the researcher or institution level.
Should FWCI be used as a standalone metric?
No. Responsible-metrics guidance recommends reporting FWCI alongside the underlying citation counts and appropriate sample-size caveats, rather than citing the score on its own.
Also known as
FWCI · Field-weighted citation impact
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/fwci-field-weighted-citation-impact" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/fwci-field-weighted-citation-impact",
"name": "Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/fwci-field-weighted-citation-impact",
"description": "An article-level citation indicator, published by Elsevier (SciVal/Scopus), that normalises an article's citation count against the average for outputs of the same publication year, document type and subject field, with 1.0 representing the world average.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/responsible-assessment#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/fwci-field-weighted-citation-impact",
"sameAs": [
"FWCI",
"Field-weighted citation impact"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-15T04:26:27",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
