Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
13,159
result(s) for
"Citation indexes"
Sort by:
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) are prominent citation services with distinct indexing mechanisms. Comprehensive knowledge about the growth patterns of these two citation services is lacking. We analyzed the development of citation counts in WoS and GS for two classic articles and 56 articles from diverse research fields, making a distinction between retroactive growth (i.e., the relative difference between citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in mid-2005 and citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in April 2013) and actual growth (i.e., the relative difference between citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in April 2013 and citation counts up to April 2013 measured in April 2013). One of the classic articles was used for a citation-by-citation analysis. Results showed that GS has substantially grown in a retroactive manner (median of 170 % across articles), especially for articles that initially had low citations counts in GS as compared to WoS. Retroactive growth of WoS was small, with a median of 2 % across articles. Actual growth percentages were moderately higher for GS than for WoS (medians of 54 vs. 41 %). The citation-by-citation analysis showed that the percentage of citations being unique in WoS was lower for more recent citations (6.8 % for citations from 1995 and later vs. 41 % for citations from before 1995), whereas the opposite was noted for GS (57 vs. 33 %). It is concluded that, since its inception, GS has shown substantial expansion, and that the majority of recent works indexed in WoS are now also retrievable via GS. A discussion is provided on quantity versus quality of citations, threats for WoS, weaknesses of GS, and implications for literature research and research evaluation.
Journal Article
Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics
In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data “impacts” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics “foot-prints” is even lower (4–9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.
Journal Article
Funding information in Web of Science: an updated overview
Despite the limitations of funding acknowledgment (FA) data in Web of Science (WoS), studies using FA information have increased rapidly over the last several years. Considering this WoS’ recent practice of updating funding data, this paper further investigates the characteristics and distribution of FA data in four WoS journal citation indexes. The research reveals that FA information coverage variances persist cross all four citation indexes by time coverage, language and document type. Our evidence suggests an improvement in FA information collection in humanity and social science research. Departing from previous studies, we argue that FA text (FT) alone no longer seems an appropriate field to retrieve and analyze funding information, since a substantial number of documents only report funding agency or grant number information in respective fields. Articles written in Chinese have a higher FA presence rate than other non-English WoS publications. This updated study concludes with a discussion of new findings and practical guidance for the future retrieval and analysis of funded research.
Journal Article
The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index
This study aims to gain a better understanding of communication patterns in different publication types and the applicability of the Book Citation Index (BKCI) for building indicators for use in both informetrics studies and research evaluation. The authors investigated the differences not only in citation impact between journal and book literature, but also in citation patterns between edited books and their monographic authored counterparts. The complete 2005 volume of the Web of Science Core Collection database including the three journal databases and the BKCI has been processed as source documents. The results of this study show that books are more heterogeneous information sources and addressed to more heterogeneous target groups than journals. Comparatively, the differences between edited and authored books in terms of the citation impact are not so impressive as books versus journals. Advanced models and indicators which have been developed for periodicals also work for books—however with some limitations.
Journal Article
Russian Index of Science Citation: Overview and review
In early 2016 a new database was launched on the Web of Science platform—Russian Science Citation Index. The database is free to all Web of Science subscribers except those from the post-Soviet states. This database includes papers from 652 selected Russian journals and is based on the data from national citation index—Russian Index of Science Citation (RISC). RISC was launched in 2005 but it is scarcely known to the English-language audience. The paper describes the history, current structure and user possibilities of RISC. We focus on the novel features of RISC which are crucial to bibliometrics and are unavailable in the international citation indexes.
Journal Article
Publication rates of abstracts presented at the World Congress on Pain held by the International Association for the Study of Pain in 2010
Objective
To examine publication rates of the full texts of abstracts presented at the 2010 World Congress on Pain (WCP) of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Methods
Poster presentations published in the abstract booklet of the 13th WCP in 2010 were examined. The post-congress status of each abstract was investigated by searching titles, first author, and co-authors, in order, using local search engines. The year of publication, country, index, impact factor (IF) of the publishing journal, and name and title consistencies between the abstract and published text were recorded.
Results
A total 1907 poster presentations were investigated. Of these, 525 (27.5%) were published in scientific journals. The most poster presentations (402, 37%) were from the United States. The most published presentations appeared in scientific journals in 2011. Science Citation Index (SCI), SCI Expanded, and Emerging Sources Citation Index published 491 abstracts as full texts. The mean IF of journals in which articles were published was 3.90 ± 3.64.
Conclusions
As with scientific journals, a communication process should be established with authors during assessment of poster presentations at congresses regarding critical progression and rectification of deficiencies, which will increase the likelihood of presentation abstracts being published.
Journal Article
Analysis on open data as a foundation for data-driven research
Open Data, one of the key elements of Open Science, serves as a foundation for “data-driven research” and has been promoted in many countries. However, the current status of the use of publicly available data consisting of Open Data in new research styles and the impact of such use remains unclear. Following a comparative analysis in terms of the coverage with the OpenAIRE Graph, we analyzed the Data Citation Index, a comprehensive collection of research datasets and repositories with information of citation from articles. The results reveal that different countries and disciplines tend to show different trends in Open Data. In recent years, the number of data sets in repositories where researchers publish their data, regardless of the discipline, has increased dramatically, and researchers are publishing more data. Furthermore, there are some disciplines where data citation rates are not high, but the databases used are diverse.
Journal Article
Article age- and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum
The Field Weighted Citation Index (FWCI) is an article age- and field-normalized metric to evaluate scientific visibility and impact. The Topic Prominence Percentile (TPP) is another parameter that allegedly measures an article’s “momentum.” Both are available at SciVal and are thought-provoking but have been scarcely used by the community, partially because it is very time-consuming to collect these parameters, paper by paper. In this article, we created and tested a computer code that can efficiently harvest the FWCI and TPP of articles of any chosen researcher, research group, or institution from the Scopus database. After collecting the desired data, our algorithm computes the sum, mean and standard deviation, mode, and median. It also calculates an alternative metric, proposed here, i.e., a normalized parameter that divides each FWCI by the number of authors of that article and then produces similar metrics. We first used the new algorithm to collect an article dataset from a selected researcher, used as an example, who has published 226 articles since 2000. The automated data collection task took 35 min versus 4 h manually. To demonstrate the power of this approach, we present the most relevant results. For instance, 20% of this researcher’s papers have achieved very high visibility, an FWCI ≥ 2. Surprisingly, however, his articles of the highest FWCI are not the most cited. His 20 oldest papers have a similar FWCI to the 20 newest, showing that his scientific output reached a steady-state long ago. Moreover, we discovered that the papers of the highest FWCI have a higher share (65%) of international collaborators than the articles of the lowest FWCI (< 40%). These results corroborate the well-known trend that international collaboration increases scientific visibility. To generalize these findings, we also successfully compared the FWCI statistics of several senior researchers and young investigators who work in diverse fields, revealing significant differences. This way, we demonstrated that the proposed computer code and resulting metrics provide a new scientometric tool. However, a drawback is that a significant fraction of the “topics” defined by SciVal does not perfectly fit the article’s field, which leads to errors in the computation of the FWCI. Therefore, while the FWCI is a handy parameter to evaluate and compare the scientific visibility and impact of researchers of any age and science field, reliable analyses will only be possible using an improved choice of topics.
Journal Article
WeChat uptake of chinese scholarly journals: an analysis of CSSCI-indexed journals
The study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies focused on research outputs discussed on global platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, the presence of scholarly journals on local platforms was seldom studied, especially in the Chinese social media context. To fill this gap, this study investigates the uptake of WeChat (a Chinese social network app) by the Chinese scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). The results show that 65.3% of CSSCI-indexed journals have created WeChat public accounts and posted over 193 thousand WeChat posts in total. At the journal level, bibliometric indicators (e.g., citations, downloads, and journal impact factors) and WeChat indicators (e.g., clicks, likes, replies, and recommendations) are weakly correlated with each other, reinforcing the idea of fundamentally differentiated dimensions of indicators between bibliometrics and social media metrics. Results also show that journals with WeChat public accounts slightly outperform those without WeChat public accounts in terms of citation impact, suggesting that the WeChat presence of scientific journals is mostly positively associated with their citation impact.
Journal Article