首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 484 毫秒
1.
Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.  相似文献   

2.
This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA.  相似文献   

3.
Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics.  相似文献   

4.
苏林伟  于霜  许鑫  赵星 《图书情报工作》2015,59(19):100-107
[目的/意义] 鉴于Scopus、Web of Science(WoS)与Google Scholar(GS)3个单源数据库在计量学研究和应用中的局限,发展综合利用多源数据信息的复合型引文分析方法可为计量学分析提供一种补充思路。[方法/过程] 以期刊总被引次数这一底层参量为切入点,用图书情报学国际期刊2009-2014年数据为实证基础,尝试对多源数据复合引文算术均值、几何均值及调和均值方法进行比较讨论。[结果/结论] 结果发现,算术均值、几何均值和调和均值虽有差异,但亦有线性关联,应用中可选其一;累计算术均值、几何均值和调和均值与期刊数之间未证实存在布拉德福定律,但在期刊数量等同的三分区内,累计被引均值满足形如n2:n:1的经验分布;多源数据复合引文与单个数据库引文的期刊排名差异呈现"两端小、中间大"之现象;期刊的算术均值排名与GS排名结果更接近,几何均值排名则与Scopus相似度更高,而调和均值与WoS的排名差异最小。  相似文献   

5.
The existing approaches to the definition of the scientific contributions made by researchers are analyzed. A bibliometric database is developed on the basis of the quantitative analysis of publication activities monitored by the most representative global citation systems, such as the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, USA), Scopus (Elsevier, the Netherlands), and the Russian Science Citation Index (Scientific Electronic Library, the Russian Federation). The system allows teachers and researchers to consult their scientific publications (contained in Scopus, the WoS, and the RSCI),check citation levels and the h-index, filter data by the date of publication, and access the profiles of other researchers.  相似文献   

6.
This paper examined the citation impact of Chinese- and English-language articles in Chinese-English bilingual journals indexed by Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Two findings were obtained from comparative analysis: (1) Chinese-language articles were not biased in citations compared with English-language articles, since they received a large number of citations from Chinese scientists; (2) a Chinese-language community was found in Scopus, in which Chinese-language articles mainly received citations from Chinese-language articles, but it was not found in WoS whose coverage of Chinese-language articles is only one-tenth of Scopus. The findings suggest some implications for academic evaluation of journals including Chinese-language articles in Scopus and WoS.  相似文献   

7.
以F1000数据库中生物信息学和免疫学近2 000篇文献为样本,多角度探讨WoS与Scopus数据库的优劣,其中包括两个数据库中被引频次的相关性、与F1000因子的相关性、主要评价指标数值及排序的相关性、历年被引累积量与被引总量相关性、多维空间感知图下的指标间相关性。结论指出：虽然各项指标源于WoS与Scopus不同的数据库,但是就被引频次及与F1000因子关系而言,两库具有较好的一致性;两库的主要评价指标,无论是数值抑或是排序,均体现出高度相关。上述结果可为科研评价中两个数据库的替代性和选择性提供借鉴,同时为定位在开源Scopus系统的利用提供有力依据。  相似文献   

8.
Previous research has shown that citation data from different types of Web sources can potentially be used for research evaluation. Here we introduce a new combined Integrated Online Impact (IOI) indicator. For a case study, we selected research articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (JASIST) and Scientometrics in 2003. We compared the citation counts from Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus with five online sources of citation data including Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Blogs, PowerPoint presentations and course reading lists. The mean and median IOI was nearly twice as high as both WoS and Scopus, confirming that online citations are sufficiently numerous to be useful for the impact assessment of research. We also found significant correlations between conventional and online impact indicators, confirming that both assess something similar in scholarly communication. Further analysis showed that the overall percentage for unique Google Scholar citations outside the WoS were 73% and 60% for the articles published in JASIST and Scientometrics, respectively. An important conclusion is that in subject areas where wider types of intellectual impact indicators outside the WoS and Scopus databases are needed for research evaluation, IOI can be used to help monitor research performance.  相似文献   

9.
The paper presents comparative analyses of two publication point systems, The Norwegian and the in-house system from the interdisciplinary Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), used as case in the study for publications published 2006, and compares central citation-based indicators with novel publication point indicators (PPIs) that are formalized and exemplified. Two diachronic citation windows are applied: 2006-07 and 2006-08. Web of Science (WoS) as well as Google Scholar (GS) are applied to observe the cite delay and citedness for the different document types published by DIIS, journal articles, book chapters/conference papers and monographs. Journal Crown Indicator (JCI) calculations was based on WoS. Three PPIs are proposed: the Publication Point Ratio (PPR), which measures the sum of obtained publication points over the sum of the ideal points for the same set of documents; the Cumulated Publication Point Indicator (CPPI), which graphically illustrates the cumulated gain of obtained vs. ideal points, both seen as vectors; and the normalized Cumulated Publication Point Index (nCPPI) that represents the cumulated gain of publication success as index values, either graphically or as one overall score for the institution under evaluation.The case study indicates that for smaller interdisciplinary research institutions the cite delay is substantial (2–3 years to obtain a citedness of 50%) when applying WoS for articles. Applying GS implies a shorter delay and much higher citedness for all document types. Statistical significant correlations were only found between WoS and GS and the two publication point systems in between, respectively. The study demonstrates how the nCPPI can be applied to institutions as evaluation tools supplementary to JCI in various combinations, in particular when institutions include humanistic and social science disciplines.  相似文献   

10.
There is evidence that national scientific journals are important for local communities despite their limited audience due to national languages and topics, like in pedagogy. However, it is not easy to assess the level of scientific rigour of local journals, as most do not have available scientometric data and are often published in minority languages. We hypothesize that a possible manifestation of a latent trait of inner authenticity of the scientific journal (meaning the journal is accepted by a community interested in developing the field which conducts internationally accepted research) could be H-index of the editorial board members. To test this approach, we evaluated H-index and gender of editorial board members (n = 490) from 17 Czech and Slovak national science-oriented scientific pedagogical journals which were not indexed or indexed in Erih+ or Scopus, and compared this with the five lowest-rated journals from the same field indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The H-index of editorial board members was somewhat higher in indexed journals with those from WoS showing higher scores, and the number of board members with no discernable H-index was far greater in non-indexed journals. Editorial boards of journals indexed in WoS were mostly male, compared to a dominance of women on boards of non-indexed journals. Acknowledging the limited sample, it appears that the H-index of editorial board members may be a way to value national scientific journals.  相似文献   

11.
  相似文献   

12.
  相似文献   

13.
Comprehensive yet efficient search methods are essential for any systematic or scoping review. This article outlines the stages of development of a systematic search methodology for a scoping review within the library and information science (LIS) literature. The effectiveness of the database search strategies (LISTA, LISA, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science) and supplemental search techniques are measured through a retrospective analysis of performance metrics. Findings show that for research topics limited to the library setting, it may be more effective to search fewer databases (LISTA and Scopus only) for peer reviewed journal articles and allot more time to alternate search techniques such as web searching to identify non-journal literature. The article provides an evidence-based, methodological approach to developing a systematic search plan, unique to LIS researchers, that accounts for time and resource needs.  相似文献   

14.
Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008–2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.  相似文献   

15.
Abstract

Using a scientometric approach, this study examines scholarly publications by library and information science (LIS) researchers affiliated with Iranian institutions that were published in non-Iranian journals and indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database, together with publications in Iranian LIS journals from 1980 through 2016. The results show that Iranian authors published 538 LIS documents indexed in WoS and another 7,837 in national journals. The research article was the predominant document type at both the national and international levels. The total number of international publications in LIS by all countries was 313,449; Iran ranked 34th among the countries for publications in LIS.  相似文献   

16.
This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals.  相似文献   

17.
This paper presents a method for comparing the subject headings of Scopus and WoS classifiers that has been tested based on examples in the field of mathematical disciplines. Semantic relationships of subject headings are explored by using intelligent analysis of keyword and expression clustering. The results are presented in the form of a correspondence table for the subject headings of the classifiers.  相似文献   

18.
Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.  相似文献   

19.
Many journals post accepted articles online before they are formally published in an issue. Early citation impact evidence for these articles could be helpful for timely research evaluation and to identify potentially important articles that quickly attract many citations. This article investigates whether Microsoft Academic can help with this task. For over 65,000 Scopus in-press articles from 2016 and 2017 across 26 fields, Microsoft Academic found 2–5 times as many citations as Scopus, depending on year and field. From manual checks of 1122 Microsoft Academic citations not found in Scopus, Microsoft Academic’s citation indexing was faster but not much wider than Scopus for journals. It achieved this by associating citations to preprints with their subsequent in-press versions and by extracting citations from in-press articles. In some fields its coverage of scholarly digital libraries, such as arXiv.org, was also an advantage. Thus, Microsoft Academic seems to be a more comprehensive automatic source of citation counts for in-press articles than Scopus.  相似文献   

20.
  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号