Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science

Yang, Kiduk and Meho, Lokman I. Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science., 2006 . In 69th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), Austin (US), 3-8 November 2006. [Conference paper]

[img]
Preview
 PDF
Yang_citation.pdf
Download (273kB) | Preview

English abstract

When 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.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: citation analysis
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Norm Medeiros
Date deposited: 13 Dec 2006
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:05
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/8605

References

Aksnes, D.W., & Taxt, R.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.

Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved Januray 25, 2006, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html.

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

Budd, J.M. (2000). Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty: an update. The Library Quarterly, 70(2), 230-245. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.

Cronin, B., Snyder, H.; & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 263-273.

Funkhouser, E.T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communications journals. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 563-574.

Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8), 42-45.

Glänzel, W. (1996). The needs for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics, 35(2), 167-176.

Goodman, D. & Deis, L. (2005). Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 6(3). Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.charlestonco.com/dnloads/v6n3.pdf.

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.

Holmes, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2001). Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper103.html.

Jacso, P. (2005a). 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). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf.

Jacso, P. (2005b). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214. Kostoff, R.N. (1996). Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics, 36(3), 281-292.

Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10(2), 89-95.

MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342-349.

MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444. Martin, B.R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362.

Meho, L.I., & Spurgin, K.M. (in press). Ranking the research productivity of lis faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56.

Nisonger, T.E. (2004). Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness. College & Research Libraries, 65(2), 152-163.

Notess, G.R. (2005). Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online, 29(4), 39-41. Reed, K.L. (1995). Citation analysis of faculty publications: Beyond Science Citation Index and Social Science [sic] Citation Index. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 83(4): 503-508.

Schloegl, C., & Stock, W.G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals—Citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1155-1168.

Seglen, P.O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(3), 224-229.

So, C.Y.K. (1998). Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: Effects of research specialty size and individual prominence. Scientometrics, 41(3), 325-333.

Thomas, P.R., & Watkins, D.S. (1998). Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics 41(3), 335-355.

Thomson Corporation. (2006). Web of Science 7.0. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://scientific.thomson.com/support/products/wos7/.

Van Hooydonk, G., & Milis-Proost, G. (1998). Measuring impact by a full option method and the notion of bibliometric spectra. Scientometrics, 41(2), 169-183.

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.

van Raan, A.F.J. (2000). The pandora’s box of citation analysis: Measuring scientific excellence—the last evil? In B. Cronin and H.B. Atkins (Eds.). The Web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 301-319). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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.

Wallin, Johan A. Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261-275.

Wleklinski, J.M. (2005). Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage? Online, 29(3), 22-26.

Zhao, D.Z., & Logan, E. (2002). Citation analysis using scientific publications on the web as data source: A case study in the XML research area. Scientometrics, 54(3), 449-472. 12


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