Accuracy of Cited References: The Role of Citation Databases

Buchanan, R. A.

doi:10.5860/crl.67.4.292

Cited by 47 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several recent articles document the existence of database errors of different nature (Jacso 2006(Jacso , 2012Franceschini et al 2013Franceschini et al , 2014; a synthetic taxonomy of the major errors is reported in Table 1, distinguishing between author and database mapping errors (Buchanan 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DOI-i.e., Digital Object Identifier-is a character string, which univocally identifies entities that are object of intellectual property. In bibliometrics, DOIs are used for univocally identifying scientific papers. The aim of this short communication is to raise the reader's awareness of bibliometric database errors in DOI indexing, in particular, the incorrect assignment of a single DOI to multiple papers. This error is quite interesting since DOI is commonly regarded as an effective means to identify scientific articles unambiguously. For the purpose of example, a short list of DOIs, which have been wrongly assigned by the Scopus database to multiple papers, is shown. Although being relatively rare, DOI indexing errors should be considered by bibliometricians when querying bibliometric databases by DOI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to generic criticism, the following must be underlined: language bias, with an overwhelming predominance of journals in English [MUELLER & AL., 2006], seminal articles and review articles receiving excessive citations [AKSNES, 2006;GARFIELD, 1996], the very process of gathering and processing so much information may cause errors [BUCHANAN, 2006;GARFIELD, 1996;JACSÓ, 2006;MOED & VRIENS, 1989] and the inappropriate definition of citable documents [GARFIELD, 1998;GLÄNZEL & MOED, 2002;MOED & VAN LEEUWEN, 1995;MOED & AL., 1999]. Other criticisms are specifically aimed at the calculation method employed by ISI for impact-factor construction [ADAM, 2002;GLÄNZEL & MOED, 2002;MOED, 2002;SEGLEN, 1997A,B;WHITEHOUSE, 2002].…”

Section: Criticism To Methodology and Use Of Impact Factors: The Casementioning

confidence: 99%

The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor

Gómez-Sancho

Mancebón-Torrubia

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of research activity still remains a controversial question. The use of the impact factor from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is quite widespread nowadays to carry out evaluations of all kinds; however, the calculation formula employed by ISI in order to construct its impact factors biases the results in favour of knowledge fields which are better represented in the sample, cite more in average and whose citations are concentrated in the early years of the articles.In the present work, we put forward a theoretical proposal regarding how aggregated normalization should be carried out with these biases, which allows comparing scientific production between fields, institutions and/or authors in a neutral manner. The technical complexity of such work, together with data limitations, lead us to propose some adjustments on the impact factor proposed by ISI which -although they do not completely solve the problemreduce it and allow glimpsing the path towards more neutral evaluations. The proposal is empirically applied to three analysis levels: single journals, knowledge fields and the set of journals from the Journal Citation Report.

show abstract

“…The direct employment of the IFISI has been criticised from many points of view. With regard to generalised criticism, the following points must be underlined: language bias, with an overwhelming predominance of journals in English (Mueller et al 2006), seminal articles and review articles receiving excessive citations (Aksnes 2006;Garfield 1996), the very process of gathering and processing so much information leading to errors (Buchanan 2006;Garfield 1996;Jacsó 2006;Moed and Vriens 1989) and the inappropriate definition of citable documents (Garfield 1998;Glänzel and Moed 2002;Moed et al 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new approach to measuring scientific production in JCR journals and its application to Spanish public universities

Gómez-Sancho

Mancebón-Torrubia

2010

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific production has been evaluated from very different perspectives, the best known of which are essentially based on the impact factors of the journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This has been no impediment to the simultaneous issuing of warnings regarding the dangers of their indiscriminate use when making comparisons. This is because the biases incorporated in the elaboration of these impact factors produce significant distortions, which may invalidate the results obtained. Notable among such biases are those generated by the differences in the propensity to cite of the different areas, journals and/or authors, by variations in the period of materialisation of the impact and by the varying presence of knowledge areas in the sample of reviews contained in the JCR. While the traditional evaluation method consists of standardisation by subject categories, recent studies have criticised this approach and offered new possibilities for making inter-area comparisons. In view of such developments, the present study proposes a novel approach to the measurement of scientific activity, in an attempt to lessen the aforementioned biases. This approach consists of combining the employment of a new impact factor, calculated for each journal, with the grouping of the institutions under evaluation into homogeneous groups. An empirical application is undertaken to evaluate the scientific production of Spanish public universities in the year 2000. This application considers both the articles published in the multidisciplinary databases of the Web of Science (WoS) and the data concerning

show abstract

Accuracy of Cited References: The Role of Citation Databases

Cited by 47 publications

References 18 publications

Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor

A new approach to measuring scientific production in JCR journals and its application to Spanish public universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About