45 research outputs found
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
No full textBackground:
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
Publication and citation patterns of Korean LIS research by subject areas
No full textMany researchers have suggested careful application of bibliometric indicators to research evaluation because of many factors including disciplinary norms that influence the publication and citation behaviors of researchers. Although some researchers have examined different bibliometric patterns across disciplines, relatively few scholars have focused on whether research performance should be evaluated in a uniform manner across research domains within a single discipline, especially in a multi-disciplinary fields such as library and information science (LIS). In order to ascertain whether such subject-specific differences exist in the LIS field, we conducted a bibliometric study that examined the publication and citation patterns across subject areas of LIS research in Korea. The analysis of our study data, which consisted of 6,838 citations to 1,986 domestic papers published between 2001 and 2010 by 163 LIS faculty members in Korea, revealed some evidence of bibliometric pattern differences across subject areas. In particular, we found that the authors in Bibliographic Studies, who were almost twice as productive as authors in other subject areas, received the lowest citation counts, which might be attributed to their different publishing and citing behaviors. Publication and citation patterns across subject areas of LIS papers and observation of the possible effect of sub-disciplinary culture on citing behaviors suggest the need for subject-specific assessment of multidisciplinary research discipline such as LIS. In future studies, we will investigate different publication and citation behaviors of authors by subject areas
Bibliometric Approach to Research Assessment: Publication Count, Citation Count, & Author Rank
No full textWe investigated how bibliometric indicators such as publication count and citation count affect the assessment of research performance by computing various bibliometric scores of the works of Korean LIS faculty members and comparing the rankings by those scores. For the study data, we used the publication and citation data of 159 tenure-track faculty members of Library and Information Science departments in 34 Korean universities. The study results showed correlation between publication count and citation count for authors with many publications but the opposite evidence for authors with few publications. The study results suggest that as authors publish more and more work, citations to their work tend to increase along with publication count. However, for junior faculty members who have not yet accumulated enough publications, citations to their work are of great importance in assessing their research performance. The study data also showed that there are marked differences in the magnitude of citations between papers published in Korean journals and papers published in international journals
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
No full textWhen faculty members are evaluated, they are judged in part by the impact and quality of their scholarly publications. While all academic institutions look to publication counts and venues as well as the subjective opinions of peers, many hiring, tenure, and promotion committees also rely on citation analysis to obtain a more objective assessment of an author’s work. Consequently, faculty members try to identify as many citations to their published works as possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of their publication impact on the scholarly and professional communities. The Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) citation databases, which are widely used as a starting point if not the only source for locating citations, have several limitations that may leave gaps in the coverage of citations to an author’s work. This paper presents a case study comparing citations found in Scopus and Google Scholar with those found in Web of Science (the portal used to search the three ISI citation databases) for items published by two Library and Information Science full-time faculty members. In addition, the paper presents a brief overview of a prototype system called CiteSearch, which analyzes combined data from multiple citation databases to produce citation-based quality evaluation measures
Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar
No full textThe Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours
Combining text- and link-based retrieval methods for Web IR
No full textuncvmss, uncvsmm, uncfsls, uncfslm 1 – WT10g automatic topic relevance task run
A hybrid approach to generating and utilizing faceted vocabulary for knowledge discovery on the web
No full text
