The normalized citation indicator may not be sufficiently reliable when a short citation time window is used, because the citation counts for recently published papers are not as reliable as those for papers published many years ago. In a limited time period, recent publications usually have insufficient time to accumulate citations and the citation counts of these publications are not sufficiently reliable to be used in the citation impact indicators. However, normalization methods themselves cannot solve this problem. To solve this problem, we introduce a weighting factor to the commonly used normalization indicator Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) at the paper level. The weighting factor, which is calculated as the correlation coefficient between citation counts of papers in the given short citation window and those in the fixed long citation window, reflects the degree of reliability of the CNCI value of one paper. To verify the effect of the proposed weighted CNCI indicator, we compared the CNCI score and CNCI ranking of 500 universities before and after introducing the weighting factor. The results showed that although there was a strong positive correlation before and after the introduction of the weighting factor, some universities’ performance and rankings changed dramatically.

当使用较短的引文时间窗口时，归一化引文指标可能不够可靠，因为最近发表的论文的引文计数不如多年前发表的论文可靠。在有限的时间内，最近的出版物通常没有足够的时间来积累引用，这些出版物的引用计数不够可靠，无法用于引用影响指标。但是，规范化方法本身无法解决此问题。为了解决这个问题，我们在纸张级别上为常用的归一化指标类别归一化引文影响（CNCI）引入了一个加权因子。加权因子 它是根据给定的短引文窗口中的论文引文计数与固定长引文窗口中的论文引文计数之间的相关系数计算的，反映了一篇论文的CNCI值的可靠性。为了验证建议的加权CNCI指标的效果，我们在引入加权因子之前和之后比较了500所大学的CNCI得分和CNCI排名。结果表明，尽管引入加权因子前后有很强的正相关性，但一些大学的表现和排名发生了巨大变化。在介绍加权因子之前和之后，我们比较了500所大学的CNCI得分和CNCI排名。结果表明，尽管引入加权因子前后有很强的正相关性，但一些大学的表现和排名发生了巨大变化。在介绍加权因子之前和之后，我们比较了500所大学的CNCI得分和CNCI排名。结果表明，尽管引入加权因子前后有很强的正相关性，但一些大学的表现和排名发生了巨大变化。