An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment

Bauer, Kathleen; Bakkalbasi, Nisa

doi:10.1045/september2005-bauer

Cited by 159 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Bauer and Bakkalbasi (2005) Web of Science, especially for relatively recent publications, but until Google Scholar provides a complete accounting of the material that it indexes and how often that index is updated, Google Scholar cannot be considered a true scholarly resource in the sense that Scopus and Web of Science are. Jacsó (2005) conducted several tests comparing Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, searching for documents citing (a) Eugene Garfield, (b) an article by Garfield published in 1955 in Science, (c) the journal Current Science, and (d) the 30 most-cited articles from Current Science.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science

Meho

Rogers

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

307

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR-a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that h scores should be manually calculated instead of relying on system calculations.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science

Meho

Rogers

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

307

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Google Scholar has a very liberal counting policy that typically leads to a very high number of citations. In particular, as pointed out in [13], Google Scholar also covers grey literature citing a publication. Microsoft Academic Search is more conservative and counts fewer citations on average.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Status of Experimental Research on the Semantic Web

Stuckenschmidt

Schuhmacher

Knopp

et al. 2013

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Experimentation is an important way to validate results of Semantic Web and Computer Science research in general. In this paper, we investigate the development and the current status of experimental work on the Semantic Web. Based on a corpus of 500 papers collected from the International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) over the past decade, we analyse the importance and the quality of experimental research conducted and compare it to general Computer Science. We observe that the amount and quality of experiments are steadily increasing over time. Unlike hypothesised, we cannot confirm a statistically significant correlation between a paper's citations and the amount of experimental work reported. Our analysis, however, shows that papers comparing themselves to other systems are more often cited than other papers.

show abstract

“…Bauer and Bakkalbasi (2005) concluded that all three data sources returned some unique material and that the question of which provided the most complete set of citing literature might depend on the subject and publication year of a given article. In four science disciplines, Kousha and Thelwall (2006) found that the overlap of citing documents between Google Scholar and Web of Science varies from one field to another and, in some cases, such as chemistry, it is relatively low (33%).…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-faceted Citation Analysis for Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications

Yang¹,

Meho²

2011

Journal of the Korean Society for information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the widespread use, critics claim that citation analysis has serious limitations in evaluating the research performance of scholars. First, conventional citation analysis methods yield one-dimensional and sometimes misleading evaluation as a result of not taking into account differences in citation quality, not filtering out citation noise such as self-citations, and not considering non-numeric aspects of citations such as language, culture, and time. Second, the citation database coverage of today is disjoint and incomplete, which can result in conflicting quality assessment outcomes across different data sources. This paper discuss the findings from a citation analysis study that measured the impact of scholarly publications based on the data mined from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and briefly describes a work-in-progress prototype system called CiteSearch, which is designed to overcome the weaknesses of existing citation analysis methods with a robust citation-based quality assessment approach.

show abstract

An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment

Cited by 159 publications

References 0 publications

Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science

Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science

On the Status of Experimental Research on the Semantic Web

Multi-faceted Citation Analysis for Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About