1,721,024 research outputs found
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Full text linkBackground:
Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic, and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science. In 2004, two competitors emerged – Scopus and Google Scholar. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003).
Methods:
11 journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for both years, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7-12, 2005 we extracted the citation counts for each research article from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources.
Results:
For oncology 1993, Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003, Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics.
Conclusions:
This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for 2003 oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. Unique material was returned by all three tools. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article
How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
No full textThis is an author's accepted manuscript of an article due to be published by Springer in Scientometrics on 12 November 2024. The accepted manuscript may differ from the final published version. For re-use please see Springer's terms and conditions.This study analysed the acknowledgment of ChatGPT in 1,759 academic publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science up to August 2024. Around 80% of acknowledgments were related to text editing and proofreading, while only 5.3% mentioned ChatGPT for non-editorial research support, such as data analysis or programming. A small portion (3.5%) of researchers acknowledged ChatGPT for drafting sections of manuscripts. About two-thirds of corresponding authors who acknowledged ChatGPT were from non-English-speaking countries, and 75% of the publications with ChatGPT acknowledgments were published within January to August 2024. These findings suggest that ChatGPT was primarily acknowledged for language enhancement rather than more complex research applications, although some researchers may not have found it necessary to mention its use in their publications, highlighting the need for transparency from journals and publishers
The development and drivers of the impact advantages of open access research
Full text linkA thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.Introduction: The tendency for Open Access (OA) research to attract more citations and online attention than non-OA research is widely referred to as the Open Access Advantage (OAA). While numerous hypotheses attempt to explain this phenomenon, existing research lacks comprehensive analyses of how OAAs have evolved, differ by OA type and journal status, and how they change over time. A lack of consistent methodologies, overly narrow studies and lack of longitudinal research hampers understanding. This thesis addresses these gaps and attempts to understand the underlying phenomena.
Methods: Using a dataset of approximately 45M journal articles published between 2010–23, the study examines OAAs across multiple metrics. These include journal citations, and six altmetric data sources, being citations from patents, Wikipedia, policy documents, and mentions on Twitter, in news, and in blogs. Analyses are segmented by publication year, time since publication, discipline, OA type, and journal status. Metrics are presented and analysed by proportions and means, the Open Access Advantages as OA:non-OA ratios.
Results: Findings reveal that while OAAs are present for most metrics, they are highly variable: the scale of OAAs are not universal. Differences emerge between metrics, showing distinct patterns: medical and life science OA citation rates are 1.25–2× higher; engineering, technology and maths OA papers are approximately 3× more likely to be covered by blogs; OA research gets approximately 3× the volume of attention on Twitter. Citation-based OAAs tend to decline in recent years, with the citation means advantage disappearing for the social sciences and technical–mathematical fields. Open Access research is between 1.2–1.5× more likely to be cited in the year of publication, an effect that drops slightly in the second year, before recovering in subsequent years, growing its advantage. OA research is more likely to be featured in news and blog sources by a factor of over 2, although this benefit is not universal. OAAs are generally stronger for higher-status journals, often changing as articles age. Green OA – the least common form – tends to outperform Gold OA. Disciplinary variation is significant: medical and life sciences show accelerated levels of impact associated with OA adoption, humanities mirror this trend, while social sciences diverge.
Conclusion: OAAs are not a single phenomenon, no single explanation can be used to understand them. These mechanisms appear to change over time, as OA is adopted by different disciplines. The presence of significant OAAs for the year of publication, suggest that early access is a significant driver of OAAs, although the persistence of these phenomena suggest other mechanisms, mostly likely being a form of ‘rich get richer’ effect related to the visibility and discoverability of OA. Increased rates of OA research impact different stakeholder groups in different ways, public interest and social impact, and individual disciplines show significant differences in how impactful their move towards OA has been. OA may accelerate research and impact in some fields. The benefits of Open Access publishing can not be assumed to apply universally: these findings have implications for funders, academics, publishers and research evaluators
An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books
Full text linkRecent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time‐consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.University of Wolverhampto
Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov
Full text linkAn important way in which medical research can translate into improved health outcomes is by motivating or influencing clinical trials that eventually lead to changes in clinical practice. Citations from clinical trials records to academic research may therefore serve as an early warning of the likely future influence of the cited articles. This paper partially assesses this hypothesis by testing whether prior articles referenced in ClinicalTrials.gov records are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. The results from four high profile general medical journals support the hypothesis, although there may not be a cause-and effect relationship. Nevertheless, it is reasonable for researchers to use citations to their work from clinical trials records as partial evidence of the possible long-term impact of their research
Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 3: books and non standard outputs
Full text linkThis literature review describes web indicators for the impact of books, software, datasets, videos and other non-standard academic outputs. Although journal articles dominate academic research in the health and natural sciences, other types of outputs can make equally valuable contributions to scholarship and are more common in other fields. It is not always possible to get useful citation-based impact indicators for these due to their absence from, or incomplete coverage in, traditional citation indexes. In this context, the web is particularly valuable as a potential source of impact indicators for non-standard academic outputs. The main focus in this review is on books because of the much greater amount of relevant research for them and because they are regarded as particularly valuable in the arts and humanities and in some areas of the social sciences
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Figshare: A universal repository for academic resource sharing?
Full text linkPurpose A number of subject-orientated and general websites have emerged to host academic resources. It is important to evaluate the uptake of such services in order to decide which depositing strategies are effective and should be encouraged. Design/methodology/approach This article evaluates the views and shares of resources in the generic repository Figshare by subject category and resource type. Findings Figshare use and common resource types vary substantially by subject category but resources can be highly viewed even in subjects with few members. Subject areas with more resources deposited do not tend to have higher viewing or sharing statistics. Practical implications Limited uptake of Figshare within a subject area should not be a barrier to its use. Several highly successful innovative uses for Figshare show that it can reach beyond a purely academic audience. Originality/value This is the first analysis of the uptake and use of a generic academic resource sharing repository
Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?
Full text linkDespite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013 to 2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential
- …
