The rise and rise of citation analysis

Meho, Lokman I. The rise and rise of citation analysis., 2007 [Preprint]


Download (69kB) | Preview

English abstract

With the vast majority of scientific papers now available online, the author describes how the Web is allowing physicists and information providers to measure more accurately the impact of these papers and their authors. Provides a historical background of citation analysis, ISI's citation databases, and the impact factor. Discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Web of Science and other more recent citation data sources (e.g., Scopus and Google Scholar), the impact of the Web on citation analysis, and the emergence of new citation-based research assessment measures (e.g., h-index). Argues that the use of multiple Web-based citation tools allows more accurate visualizations of scholarly communication networks. Also argues that publishing a journal article is now only the first step in disseminating one's work.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Citation databases, Informetrics, h-index, Impact factor, Journal Citation Reports, Physics
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Lokman I. Meho
Date deposited: 31 Dec 2006
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:05


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.

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 October 04, 2006 from

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

Bar-Ilan, J. (submitted). Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics.

Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved March 25, 2006, from

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

Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179-255.

Börner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2006). Network Science: A Theoretical and Practical Framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H-D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H-D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65(3), 391-392.

Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.

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

Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter 2(1) 8–9.

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93.

Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313 (7054), 411-413.

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

Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Retrieved on April 27, 2006 from

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. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from

Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3-4), 67-92.

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 September 15, 2006, from

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

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 March 15, 2006, from

Kostoff, R. N. (1996). Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics, 36(3), 281-292.

Lawrence, S., et al. (1999). Digital libraries and autonomous citation indexing. Computer 32(6), 67–71.

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., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2000). Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 123-138.

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (in press). A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

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

Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons.

Nisonger, T. E. (2004). The benefits and drawbacks of impact factor for journal collection management in libraries. The Serials Librarian, 47(1-2), 57-75.

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).

Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27.

Persson, O., & Åström, F. (2005). Most cited universities and authors in Library & Information Science 1990-2004. Bibliometric Notes, 7(2). Retrieved November 15, 2006, from

Roth, D. L. (2005). The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and Web of Science. Current Science, 89(9), 1531-1536. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from

Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42-46.

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

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

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.

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, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261-275.

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


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item