A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Levine‐Clark, Michael; Gil, Esther

doi:10.1080/08963560802176348

Cited by 114 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, many authors compared Google Scholar with other citation archives such as the databases of Thomson Reuters (formerly the Institute for Scientific Information), Scopus, PubMed, and Compendex to name a few (e.g., Falagas et al, 2008;Harzing & van der Wal, 2008;Kousha & Thelwall, 2007, 2008Levine-Clark & Gil, 2009;Meho & Yang, 2007;Pauly & Stergiou, 2005;Smith, 2008;Walters, 2009). Most studies have recognized Google Scholar' s exceptional search performance and comprehensive database, which even includes conference proceedings and international academic sources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contributions of human resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis

Jeung

Yoon

Park

et al. 2011

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary purpose of the current study is to identify how human resource development (HRD) research has contributed to the knowledge base across social science disciplines during the past two decades. We identified the top 20 Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) journal articles that have been most frequently cited in research articles published in journals other than the four AHRD journals. With the use of content analysis of the most-cited articles, three key research themes were identified: (a) training transfer and evaluation, (b) learning in organizations, and (c) knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. The research contributions of HRD within the field of HRD and across disciplines are discussed.Research-pursuit of new knowledge and its dissemination-is the soul of academia.-Richard A. Swanson This article attempts to identify the inherent contributions of human resource development (HRD) as an academic discipline to the broader community of academia. In practice, it has been agreed that human resources in an organization are the primary source of core competitive advantage (Garavan, 2007). Increasingly, there is a need for the continuous improvement and development of human resources to help organizations adapt to changing environments, so companies have emphasized the importance of HRD. However, HRD still holds a peripheral position in the academic realm. For instance, despite the continuous efforts of the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), the leading scholarly body of the discipline, no AHRD-sponsored journal has been listed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) (Russ-Eft, 2008 Jeung, Yoon, Park, Jo degree titles and affiliations of undergraduate and graduate programs addressing HRD tend to be inconsistent across colleges and universities. These issues imply that there is a lack of recognition from the larger academic community, as well as an incomplete establishment of the distinct identity of HRD.HRD is known as a multidisciplinary field (e.g., McLean, 1998;Swanson, 1999;Weinberger, 1998), which owes its foundation to external academic fields (Jacobs, 1990;McGuire & Cseh, 2006). However, although HRD has built a unique body of work that has made significant contributions to various social science fields over several decades, it has not received adequate recognition. Given that little attention has been paid to the HRD community' s scholarly contributions across disciplines, there is a need to understand the identity of HRD by identifying the "multidisciplinary" contributions of HRD research across various disciplines. Unfortunately, few attempts to explore the scholastic contributions of HRD have effectively transcended the boundaries of the AHRD community.Our approach to explore the contributions of HRD is to count citation frequency. A citation link between any two documents shows an association of a research topic and a connection between the scholastic ideas. In research communities, citation frequency is used as a method to assess professional recognition and relat...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contributions of human resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis

Jeung

Yoon

Park

et al. 2011

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be mentioned, however, that much of the literature uses erroneous terms when referring to the concept "hit" (results for a specific search), because sometimes they use it as a synonym for "citation" (citations aggregated under a master record), although they are related but different concepts (Levine-Clark and Gil, 2009). It is therefore difficult at times to follow or appropriately contextualise many of the findings and conclusions.…”

Section: Duplicate Hitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar como una fuente de evaluación científica: una revisión bibliográfica sobre errores de la base de datos

Orduña-Malea

Martín-Martín

López-Cózar

2017

Rev. esp. doc. cient.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Google Scholar (GS) is an academic search engine and discovery tool launched by Google (now Alphabet) in November 2004. The fact that GS provides the number of citations received by each article from all other indexed articles (regardless of their source) has led to its use in bibliometric analysis and academic assessment tasks, especially in social sciences and humanities. However, the existence of errors, sometimes of great magnitude, has provoked criticism from the academic community. The aim of this article is to carry out an exhaustive bibliographical review of all studies that provide either specific or incidental empirical evidence of the errors found in Google Scholar. The results indicate that the bibliographic corpus dedicated to errors in Google Scholar is still very limited (n= 49), excessively fragmented, and diffuse; the findings have not been based on any systematic methodology or on units that are comparable to each other, so they cannot be quantified, or their impact analysed, with any precision. Certain limitations of the search engine itself (time required for data cleaning, limit on citations per search result and hits per query) may be the cause of this absence of empirical studies.Keywords: Google Scholar; Academic search engines; Bibliographic databases; Errors; Quality.Google Scholar como una fuente de evaluación científica: una revisión bibliográfica sobre errores de la base de datos Resumen: Google Scholar es un motor de búsqueda académico y herramienta de descubrimiento lanzada por Google (ahora Alphabet) en noviembre de 2004. El hecho de que para cada registro bibliográfico se proporcione información acerca del número de citas recibidas por dicho registro desde el resto de registros indizados en el sistema (independientemente de su fuente) ha propiciado su utilización en análisis bibliométricos y en procesos de evaluación de la actividad académica, especialmente en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. No obstante, la existencia de errores, en ocasiones de gran magnitud, ha provocado su rechazo y crítica por una parte de la comunidad científica. Este trabajo pretende precisamente realizar una revisión bibliográfica exhaustiva de todos los estudios que de forma monográfica o colateral proporcionan alguna evidencia empírica sobre cuáles son los errores cometidos por Google Scholar (y productos derivados, como Google Scholar Metrics y Google Scholar Citations). Los resultados indican que el corpus bibliográfico dedicado a los errores en Google Scholar es todavía escaso (n= 49), excesivamente fragmentado, disperso, con resultados obtenidos sin metodologías sistemáticas y en unidades no comparables entre sí, por lo que su cuantificación y su efecto real no pueden ser caracterizados con precisión. Ciertas limitaciones del propio buscador (tiempo requerido de limpieza de datos, límite de citas por registro y resultados por consulta) podrían ser la causa de esta ausencia de trabajos empíricos. octubre-diciembre 2017octubre-diciembre , e185 ISSN-L:0210-0614. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10....

show abstract

“…As indicated by Meho andYang (2007, p. 2105), GS "stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings" and the use of GS, in addition to WoK, "helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors." In fact, it has been shown that combining these different sources provides a more complete picture of the scholarly impact (Levine-Clark & Gil, 2009). Using the WoK database, we extracted the metadata details of almost 92,000 citing papers while the number of extracted citing papers from GS reached almost a half-million.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is going to win the next Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Fellowship Award? Evaluating researchers by mining bibliographic data

Rokach

Kalech

Blank

et al. 2011

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurately evaluating a researcher and the quality of his or her work is an important task when decision makers have to decide on such matters as promotions and awards. Publications and citations play a key role in this task, and many previous studies have proposed using measurements based on them for evaluating researchers. Machine learning techniques as a way of enhancing the evaluating process have been relatively unexplored. We propose using a machine learning approach for evaluating researchers. In particular, the proposed method combines the outputs of three learning techniques (logistics regression, decision trees, and artificial neural networks) to obtain a unified prediction with improved accuracy. We conducted several experiments to evaluate the model's ability to: (a) classify researchers in the field of artificial intelligence as Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) fellows and (b) predict the next AAAI fellowship winners. We show that both our classification and prediction methods are more accurate than are previous measurement methods, and reach a precision rate of 96% and a recall of 92%.

show abstract

A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Cited by 114 publications

References 8 publications

The contributions of human resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis

The contributions of human resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis

Google Scholar como una fuente de evaluación científica: una revisión bibliográfica sobre errores de la base de datos

Who is going to win the next Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Fellowship Award? Evaluating researchers by mining bibliographic data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About