Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data,and expert judgments |
| |
| Authors: | Jiang Li Mark Sanderson Peter Willett Michael Norris Charles Oppenheim |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Information Management, Nanjing University, China;2. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK;3. Department of Information Science, Loughborough University, UK;1. Department of Information Management, Nanjing University, China;2. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK;3. Department of Information Science, Loughborough University, UK;1. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany;2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;1. Institute for Education and Information Sciences, IBW, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, Antwerp B-2000, Belgium;2. KU Leuven, Department of Mathematics, Celestijnenlaan 200B, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium;3. Library of Tongji University, Tongji University, Siping Street 1239, Shanghai 200092, China;4. SPRU, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SL, UK;5. Institute for Education and Information Sciences, IBW, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, Antwerp B-2000, Belgium;1. Department of Control Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, PR China;2. Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PR China;3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA;4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
