Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers?

Farhadi, Hadi, Salehi, Hadi, Yunus, Melor Md, Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo, Farhadi, Maryam, Fooladi, Masood and Ale Ebrahim, Nader Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers? Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2013, vol. 7, n. 4, pp. 198-202. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Preview

Text 198-202.pdf - Published version Download (609kB) | Preview

English abstract

h-index retrieved by citation indexes (Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science) is used to measure the scientific performance and the research impact studies based on the number of publications and citations of a scientist. It also is easily available and may be used for performance measures of scientists, and for recruitment decisions. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between the outputs and results from these three citation databases namely Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science based upon the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers (Nobel Prize winner scientist). The purposive sampling method was adopted to collect the required data. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the h-index between three citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science; the Google scholar h-index was more than the h-index in two other databases. It was also concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between h-indices based on Google scholar and Scopus. The citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science may be useful for evaluating h-index of scientists but they have some limitations as well.

Item type:	Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords:	h-index, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Nobel Prize, Physics, Chemistry, Economic Sciences.
Subjects:	B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information. B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods E. Publishing and legal issues. I. Information treatment for information services > IC. Index languages, processes and schemes.
Depositing user:	Dr. Nader Ale Ebrahim
Date deposited:	04 Jun 2013 13:18
Last modified:	02 Oct 2014 12:26
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/10760/19367

References

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

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

Egghe, L., R. Rousseau, 2006. An informetric model for the Hirsch-index, Scientometrics, 69(1): 121-129.

Google Scholar. (No Date). About Google Scholar. Retrieved 27 January 2013, from http://scholar.google.com/.

Hirsch, J.E., 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46): 16569‐16572.

ISI WoS. Thomson Scientific. (No Date). Web of Science. Retrieved 27 January 2013, from http://portal.isiknowledge.com/.

Mikki, S., 2009. Google Scholar Compared to Web of Science: A Literature Review. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1(1): 41‐51.

Nobel Prize. (No Date). About Nobel Prize. Retrieved 27 January 2013, from http://www.nobelprize.org/.

Scopus. (No Date). About Scopus. Retrieved 27 January 2013, from http://www.scopus.com/.

Van Raan, A.F.J., 2006. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3): 491-502.

Vanclay, J.K., 2007. On the robustness of the h‐index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10): 1547‐1550.

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item