Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers

Ale Ebrahim, Nader and Salehi, Hadi and Embi, Mohamed Amin and Danaee, Mahmoud and Mohammadjafari, Marjan and Zavvari, Azam and Shakiba, Masoud and Shahbazi-Moghadam, Masoomeh Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers. Modern Applied Science, 2014, vol. 8, n. 5, pp. 63-69. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Equality of Google Scholar.pdf

Download (210kB) | Preview

English abstract

This study uses citation analysis from two citation tracking databases, Google Scholar (GS) and ISI Web of Science, in order to test the correlation between them and examine the effect of the number of paper versions on citations. The data were retrieved from the Essential Science Indicators and Google Scholar for 101 highly cited papers from Malaysia in the field of engineering. An equation for estimating the citation in ISI based on Google scholar is offered. The results show a significant and positive relationship between both citation in Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science with the number of versions. This relationship is higher between versions and ISI citations (r = 0.395, p<0.01) than between versions and Google Scholar citations (r = 0.315, p<0.01). Free access to data provided by Google Scholar and the correlation to get ISI citation which is costly, allow more transparency in tenure reviews, funding agency and other science policy, to count citations and analyze scholars’ performance more precisely.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Bibliometrics, Citation analysis, Evaluations, Equivalence, Google Scholar, High cited, ISI Web of Science, Research tools, H-index
Subjects: C. Users, literacy and reading. > CD. User training, promotion, activities, education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Dr. Nader Ale Ebrahim
Date deposited: 16 Aug 2014 00:14
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:32
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/23646


Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for Bibliometrics? A Webometric Analysis. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of Issi 2011: The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Vols 1 and 2 (pp. 19-25). Leuven: Int Soc Scientometrics & Informetrics-Issi.

Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). Introduction to the Research Tools Mind Map. Research World, 10(4), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7712

Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual Teams: a Literature Review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653-2669. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1067906

Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., Habibi Tanha, F., Gholizadeh, H., & Motahar, S. M. (2014). Visibility and Citation Impact. International Education Studies, 7(4), 120-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n4p120

Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., Habibi Tanha, F., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S. M., & Ordi, A. (2013). Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency. International Education Studies, 6(11), 93-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p93

Amancio, D. R., Oliveira Jr, O. N., & da Fontoura Costa, L. (2012). Three-feature model to reproduce the topology of citation networks and the effects from authors’ visibility on their h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 427-434. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.02.005

Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries 65(5), 372-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.5.372

Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7

Bensman, S. (2011). Anne-Wil Harzing: The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Scientometrics 88(1), 339-342. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0388-8

Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001

Cabezas-Clavijo, A., & Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E. (2013). Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: The popularization of bibliometric assessment. Medicina Intensiva, 37(5), 343-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2013.01.008

Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.04.001

Egghe, L., Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2013). Measuring co-authors' contribution to an article's visibility. Scientometrics 95(1), 55-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0832-4

Ertürk, K., & Şengül, G. (2012). Self Archiving in Atılım University. In S. Kurbanoğlu, U. Al, P. Erdoğan, Y. Tonta & N. Uçak (Eds.), E-Science and Information Management (Vol. 317, pp. 79-86): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33299-9_11

Fooladi, M., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, M., Aghaei Chadegani, A., Farhadi, H., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). Do Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor? Asian Social Science, 9(5), 176-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p176

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178, :471-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471

Hardy, R., Oppenheim, C., Brody, T., & Hitchcock, S. (2005). Open Access Citation Information.

Hooper, S. L. (2012). Citations: not all measures are equal. Nature 483(7387), 36-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/483036c

Jacso, P. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics for Publications The software and content features of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review 36(4), 604-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521211254121

Kear, R., & Colbert-Lewis, D. (2011). Citation searching and bibliometric measures: Resources for ranking and tracking. College & Research Libraries News, 72(8), 470-474.

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web-URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.v58:7

Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84(3), 575-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z

Lawrence, S. (2001a). Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 411(6837), 521-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35079151

Lawrence, S. (2001b). Online or invisible. Nature 411(6837), 521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35079151

McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2013). Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals: SSRN working paper.

Orduña-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics 98(3), 2353-2367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8

Pauly, D., & Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 5, 33-35.

Rotich, D. C., & Musakali, J. J. (2013). Publish or Perish: Remaining Academically Relevant and Visible In the Global Academic Scene through Scholarly Publishing. Paper presented at the Conference and Programme Chairs, South Africa.

Solomon, D. J., Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2013). A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 642-650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8

The Thomson Corporation. (2013). Essential Science Indicators, Product Overview. from http://esi.webofknowledge.com/help//h_whatis.htm

Yue, W. P., & Wilson, C. S. (2004). Measuring the citation impact of research journals in clinical neurology: A structural equation modelling analysis. Scientometrics 60(3), 317-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034377.93437.18

Zhang, C.-T. (2009). The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005429

Zheng, J., Zhao, Z. Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D. Z., Huang, M. H., Lei, X. P., . . . Zhao, Y. H. (2012). International scientific and technological collaboration of China from 2004 to 2008: a perspective from paper and patent analysis. Scientometrics 91(1), 65-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0529-0


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item