Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-Index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science

Meho, Lokman I. and Rogers, Yvonne Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-Index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science., 2008 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of Meho-Rogers.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
Meho-Rogers.pdf
Download (247kB) | Preview

English abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR--a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results show that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially if citations in conference proceedings are sought and that h scores should be manually calculated instead of relying on system calculations.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: HCI, Human-Computer Interaction, Citation Analysis, Bibliometrics, H-Index, Scholarly Communication, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Lokman I. Meho
Date deposited: 10 Mar 2008
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:10
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/11238

References

Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415 (6873), 726.729.

Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 7. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1533854

Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2006). Science indicators revisited – Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information Services & Use, 26(4), 293–301.

Ballard, S., & Henry, M. (2006). Citation searching: New players, new tools. The Searcher, 14(9), 24-33.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2006). An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1553-1566.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2008a). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1-52.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2008b). Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.

Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.

Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html

Borgman, C. L. (ed.). (1990). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3-72.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.

Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 565-574.

Cronin, B. (1996). Rates of return to citation. Journal of Documentation, 52(2), 188-197.

Cronin, B., & Meho, L. I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551–564.

Cronin, B., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.

Dillon, T. W. (1995). Mapping the discourse of HCI researchers with citation analysis. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(4), 56-62.

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.

Galliers, R. D., & Whitley, E. A. (2002). An anatomy of European information systems research ECIS 1993-ECIS 2002: Some initial findings. In S. Wrycza (Ed.), Information systems and the future of the digital economy, Gdansk, Poland, 6th - 8th June 2002: ECIS 2002: proceedings of the Xth European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 3–18.

Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.

Golderman, G., & Connolly, B. (2007). Who cited this? Library Journal (Net Connect), 132, 18-26.

Goodman, D., & Deis, L. (2007). Update on Scopus and Web of Science. The Charleston Advisor, 8(3), 15-18.

Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing & Management, 37(5), 661–675.

Hewett, T. T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G., & Verplank, W. (1992). ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved March 03, 2008 from http://sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.

Jacsó, P. (2005). As we may search—comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf

Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309.

Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., & Rousseau R. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863.

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. In Book of Abstracts, 9th International Science & Technology Indicators Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 72–73.

Meho, L. I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20(1), 32-36.

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575-583.

Moed, H. F. (2008). UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153-161.

Moed, H. F., & Visser, M. S. (2007). Developing bibliometric indicators of research performance in computer science: An exploratory study. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). Leiden University, the Netherlands. Research Report to the Council for Physical Sciences of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). CWTS Report 2007-01. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.cwts.nl/cwts/NWO_Inf_Final_Report_V_210207.pdf

Neary, J. P., Mirrlees, J. A., & Tirole, J. (2003). Evaluating economics research in Europe: An introduction. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(6), 1239-1249.

Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., & Asher, A. (2008). Google Scholar Goes to School: The Presence of Google Scholar on College and University Web Sites. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 39-51.

Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2003). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709-730.

Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.

Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.

Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-Index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301.

Oulasvirta, A. (2007). CHI statistics. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.hiit.fi/node/290

Palacios-Huerta, I., & Volij, O. (2004). The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica, 72(3), 963-977.

Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation Influence for Journal Aggregates of Scientific Publications: Theory, with Application to the Literature of Physics. Information Processing & Management, 12(5), 297-312.

Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.

Roth, D. L. (2005). The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and Web of Science. Current Science, 89(9), 1531-1536. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1531.pdf.

Sanderson, M. (in press). Revisiting h measured on UK LIS academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Shneiderman, B., & Lewis, C. (1993). Building HCI partnerships and infrastructure. Behaviour & Information Technology, 12(2), 130-135.

Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799-813.

Testa, J. (2004). The Thomson Scientific journal selection process. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection/

Valero, P., & Monk, A. (1998). Positioning HCI: journals, descriptors and parent disciplines. Behaviour and Information Technology, 17(1), 3-9.

van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.

van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.

Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.

Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453-459.

Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.

White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, 99-168.

White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS