Measuring the true impact of academic research has always been a challenge. While citations are the most commonly used metric, do they really tell us which research is the most valuable? That’s where bibliometric analysis comes in, evolving over time to give us more precise insights. A recent advancement is changing the way we assess research impact: Collab-CNCI, an update to the well-established Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) that provides a more nuanced way of evaluating research influence.
For years, CNCI has been a go-to tool for evaluating how well a paper performs relative to others in its field. It essentially compares a paper’s citations to the expected citation rate for documents of the same type, published in the same year and subject area. If a CNCI value is 1, that means the paper is performing at the global average for its field. If it’s above 1, it’s doing better than expected, and if it’s below 1, it’s underperforming. But here’s the catch- CNCI doesn’t account for whether a paper is produced domestically or through international collaboration.
This is a crucial limitation because research collaboration has changed dramatically over the years. According to Clarivate data, international collaborations have grown from 8% in the 1990s to over 25% today. And there’s a well-known trend: internationally co-authored papers tend to receive more citations than those produced domestically. But does this necessarily mean they are higher-quality studies? Or do they just benefit from broader networks and increased visibility?
To address this, Clarivate introduced Collab-CNCI, which refines the traditional CNCI approach by also adjusting for collaboration type. In other words, it separates the citation impact of papers based on whether they were produced by a single institution, multiple institutions within one country, or across international borders. This additional layer of analysis helps distinguish between citation-driven visibility and true research influence.
The graph above illustrates the difference between CNCI and Collab-CNCI for Japan between 2020 and 2024. While CNCI remains close to 1, indicating an average performance relative to the global standard, Collab-CNCI is consistently lower. This suggests that while Japan’s overall citation numbers are influenced by international collaborations, the true research impact- once adjusted for collaboration type- may not be as high as initially perceived. By incorporating collaboration type into the analysis, Collab-CNCI helps differentiate between citation-driven impact and genuine research influence.
As the graph shows, Japan’s CNCI remains relatively stable and close to the global average, but its Collab-CNCI is consistently lower. This reinforces the idea that citation counts alone can be misleading, and adjusting for collaboration type provides a more refined view of research impact.
For publishers and institutions, this means a more accurate way to assess true research influence. A journal or country may appear highly impactful based on CNCI alone, but once adjusted using Collab-CNCI, a different story may emerge—one that distinguishes between citation-driven impact and genuine research quality.
For a deeper dive into how collaboration affects citation impact and the methodology behind Collab-CNCI, refer to Clarivate’s official documentation: Collaboration Analysis – InCites.
Learn More
Maverick helps publishers and institutions navigate these evolving trends through our Journal Performance Analysis (JPA) service. By combining advanced bibliometric analysis with tailored recommendations, JPA provides a strategic framework for identifying gaps and emerging trends, benchmarking against competitors, and offering actionable insights for sustainable growth and impact.
To learn explore how JPA can help enhance citations, expand global reach, and improve your competitive positioning, reach out to your Maverick representative or email info@maverick-os.com.
By Mert Köse, Affiliate Senior Associate
Mert Köse is an academic publishing professional and a lecturer at Istanbul Bilgi University’s media communication department with extensive experience in open-access publishing. He has worked as an M&A representative at Frontiers. Mert has extensive expertise in STM publishing, particularly in editorial development, journal management, and bibliometric analysis. Previously, Mert served as a Research & Development manager at Galenos. He presented a conference on predatory journals at the interdisciplinary Ph.D. communication conference at İstanbul Bilgi University in 2021.
Further Reading
Journal Performance Analysis – Redefining journal success in a competitive era
Journal Performance Analysis service sheet
Journal Performance Analysis: Navigating Global Publishing Shifts and Impact Factors
Comprehensive performance analysis of a scientific journal – Case Study