Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

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.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... This is particularly true regarding its coverage of social sciences and humanities research [10,16,17], conference proceedings [10,14] and books [17]. The GS database has been substantially qualitatively [18] and quantitatively [10,19] improved in all scientific areas such that, according to De Winter et al. [18], it could supplant WoS. ...
... This is particularly true regarding its coverage of social sciences and humanities research [10,16,17], conference proceedings [10,14] and books [17]. The GS database has been substantially qualitatively [18] and quantitatively [10,19] improved in all scientific areas such that, according to De Winter et al. [18], it could supplant WoS. ...
... However, "the automatic indexing of GS inevitably causes many errors" [20], such as duplicates [21] and false positive citations [18]. Most researchers generally claim that these errors are negligible [9,10,12,20,[22][23][24], whereas others consider that data cleaning is necessary [16,19,25] but laborious [4,21]. ...
Article
Google Scholar (GS) is a free tool that may be used by researchers to analyze citations, to find appropriate literature or to evaluate the quality of an author or a contender for tenure, promotion, a faculty position, funding or research grants. GS has become a major bibliographic and citation database. Following the literature, databases such as PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus or Web of Science can be used in place of GS because they are more reliable. The aim of this study is to examine the accuracy of citation data collected from GS and provide a comprehensive description of the errors and miscounts identified. For this purpose, 281 documents that cited two specific works were retrieved via the Publish or Perish (PoP) software and examined. This work studied the false positive issue inherent in the analysis of neuroimaging data. The results reveal an unprecedented error rate: 279 of 281 the examined references (99.3%) contain at least one error. The nonacademic documents tend to contain more errors than the academic publications (U=5117.0, P<.001). Full text: https://www.jmir.org/2022/5/e28354
... After trying out other search engines (i.e., Web of Science and Google Scholar), we concluded that Scopus offers the most accurate and powerful search and export features. Google Scholar indexes more papers than Web of Science and Scopus but has various disadvantages: (1) Google Scholar does not allow for nested Boolean searches; (2) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for exclusively searching in the abstracts of papers; (3) When the total number of records is greater than 1,000, the estimate of this number is inaccurate 1 ; (4) Google Scholar suffers from meta-data errors (Jacsó, 2008); (5) Google Scholar suffers from an underrepresentation of work created before the digital age (De Winter et al., 2014); (6) Bulk exportation of records is against the policy of Google Scholar and therefore severely inhibited (De Winter et al., 2014;Google Scholar, 2014); and (7) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for searches per discipline or country. Web of Science has various disadvantages as well: (1) Web of Science covers fewer journals and conferences than Scopus; and (2) Web of Science severely underrepresents the social sciences (De Winter et al., 2014). ...
... After trying out other search engines (i.e., Web of Science and Google Scholar), we concluded that Scopus offers the most accurate and powerful search and export features. Google Scholar indexes more papers than Web of Science and Scopus but has various disadvantages: (1) Google Scholar does not allow for nested Boolean searches; (2) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for exclusively searching in the abstracts of papers; (3) When the total number of records is greater than 1,000, the estimate of this number is inaccurate 1 ; (4) Google Scholar suffers from meta-data errors (Jacsó, 2008); (5) Google Scholar suffers from an underrepresentation of work created before the digital age (De Winter et al., 2014); (6) Bulk exportation of records is against the policy of Google Scholar and therefore severely inhibited (De Winter et al., 2014;Google Scholar, 2014); and (7) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for searches per discipline or country. Web of Science has various disadvantages as well: (1) Web of Science covers fewer journals and conferences than Scopus; and (2) Web of Science severely underrepresents the social sciences (De Winter et al., 2014). ...
... Google Scholar indexes more papers than Web of Science and Scopus but has various disadvantages: (1) Google Scholar does not allow for nested Boolean searches; (2) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for exclusively searching in the abstracts of papers; (3) When the total number of records is greater than 1,000, the estimate of this number is inaccurate 1 ; (4) Google Scholar suffers from meta-data errors (Jacsó, 2008); (5) Google Scholar suffers from an underrepresentation of work created before the digital age (De Winter et al., 2014); (6) Bulk exportation of records is against the policy of Google Scholar and therefore severely inhibited (De Winter et al., 2014;Google Scholar, 2014); and (7) Google Scholar does not provide a possibility for searches per discipline or country. Web of Science has various disadvantages as well: (1) Web of Science covers fewer journals and conferences than Scopus; and (2) Web of Science severely underrepresents the social sciences (De Winter et al., 2014). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
It is known that statistically significant (positive) results are more likely to be published than non-significant (negative) results. However, it has been unclear whether any increasing prevalence of positive results is stronger in the “softer” disciplines (social sciences) than in the “harder” disciplines (physical sciences), and whether the prevalence of negative results is decreasing over time. Using Scopus, we searched the abstracts of papers published between 1990 and 2013, and measured longitudinal trends of multiple expressions of positive versus negative results, including p -values between 0.041 and 0.049 versus p -values between 0.051 and 0.059, textual reporting of “significant difference” versus “no significant difference”, and the reporting of p < 0.05 versus p > 0.05. We found no support for a “hierarchy of sciences” with physical sciences at the top and social sciences at the bottom. However, we found large differences in reporting practices between disciplines, with p -values between 0.041 and 0.049 over 1990–2013 being 65.7 times more prevalent in the biological sciences than in the physical sciences. p -values near the significance threshold of 0.05 on either side have both increased but with those p -values between 0.041 and 0.049 having increased to a greater extent (2013-to-1990 ratio of the percentage of papers = 10.3) than those between 0.051 and 0.059 (ratio = 3.6). Contradictorily, p < 0.05 has increased more slowly than p > 0.05 (ratios = 1.4 and 4.8, respectively), while the use of “significant difference” has shown only a modest increase compared to “no significant difference” (ratios = 1.5 and 1.1, respectively). We also compared reporting of significance in the United States, Asia, and Europe and found that the results are too inconsistent to draw conclusions on cross-cultural differences in significance reporting. We argue that the observed longitudinal trends are caused by negative factors, such as an increase of questionable research practices, but also by positive factors, such as an increase of quantitative research and structured reporting.
... L'indexation automatique de GS cause de nombreuses erreurs (Franceschini et al., 2016), telles que des doublons (Meho et Yang, 2007) et des faux positifs (De Winter et al., 2014). Ces erreurs sont toutefois considérées comme négligeables par une majorité de chercheurs (Harzing et Alakangas, 2016 ;Moed et al., 2016 ;Franceschini et al., 2016 ;Li et al., 2010 ;Mingers et al., 2017 ;Martín-Martín et al., 2018). ...
... D'autres s'accordent à dire, qu'à la vue des erreurs rencontrées dans GS, un nettoyage des données est nécessaire (Martín-Martín et al., 2016 ;Prins et al., 2016 ;Wildgaard, 2015) et demande alors un temps considérable (Haddaway et al., 2015 ;Meho et Yang, 2007). Ainsi, certains chercheurs utilisent GS dans Gehanno et al., 2013 ;Franceschet, 2010 ;Pitol et De Groote, 2014 ;Jamali et Nabavi, 2015), alors que d'autres procèdent à la recherche et à la suppression des doublons (Harzing et Alakangas, 2016 ;Kousha et al., 2011 ;De Winter et al., 2014 ;Wildgaard, 2015 ;Martín-Martín et al., 2018 ;Haddaway et al., 2015 ;Lasda Bergman, 2012 ...
... Des documents peuvent augmenter indûment le nombre de citations alors qu'ils ne citent pas la référence recherchée. Ce point a été fréquemment soulevé dans la littérature (notamment sous le terme de « citation fantôme » ou « fausse citation » (Franceschini et al., 2016), mais jamais un taux aussi élevé (29,9 % dans notre corpus) n'avait été rapporté (Baneyx, 2008 ;Bar-Ilan, 2010 ;De Winter et al., 2014 ;García-Pérez, 2010 ;Granter et al., 2015). Cela s'explique par l'importante similarité des titres des deux références recherchées au cours de cette analyse. ...
Research
*****Abstract***** This HDR study aims to explore the diffusion process of an unusual work using the neuroimaging of a dead salmon. To prepare for a neuropsychological experiment, Craig Bennett and colleagues had used a dead Atlantic salmon to calibrate a scanner at the Dartmouth University. Three years later, those data were analyzed to illustrate the false positive errors in neuroimaging research. Indeed, the data analysis detected brain activity in the head of the dead salmon. This unusual work is the one of the few neuroimaging studies to be both highly cited and internationally mediated. Then, the question was to know which researchers contributed to this diffusion or, in other words, who cited this neuroimaging study. *********RESUME EN FRANCAIS********* Ce travail de recherche (HDR) repose sur le suivi sociohistorique de la diffusion d’une étude menée en neuroscience cognitive. Celle-ci a la particularité d’avoir réalisé une neuroimagerie fonctionnelle, non pas d’un sujet humain vivant, mais d’un saumon mort. Il s’agit de retracer, au moyen d’une approche abductive (Peirce, 1998), le parcours de la diffusion médiatique et scientifique de cette neuroimagerie hors norme afin de comprendre et d’expliquer son succès. Cela nous mèna au cœur d’une controverse méthodologique et normative alimentée et diffusée par plusieurs collectifs de chercheurs, mis au jour par leurs pratiques de citations. Enfin, cette étude sociologique documentaire, scientométrique et lexicométrique, nous conduira vers une réflexion plus générale d’épistémologie des neurosciences centrée sur le processus de validation scientifique, le tissu normatif l’entourant, et les valeurs inhérentes à la « communauté scientifique » (Polanyi, 2013 [1951]) impliquée. Nous verrons alors que cet objet singulier – la neuroimagerie d’un saumon mort – révèle une dynamique sociale spécifique qui nous conduira vers une analyse épistémologique des pratiques de recherche et des normes scientifiques, jusqu’à l’élaboration d’une modélisation conceptuelle liant normes et valeurs scientifiques. Mots clés : diffusion scientifique ; analyse des citations ; normes ; faux positifs ; neuroimagerie ; valeurs épistémiques.
... There is a lack of transparency regarding what is indexed in GS [16,26] which may explain to a certain degree the changing citation numbers for the same period [27]. This is a serious threat to the reliability of search when using GS. ...
... This is a serious threat to the reliability of search when using GS. Furthermore, Winter et al. [27] concluded in a longitudinal study that the number of citations substantially increased in GS for the same articles retroactively (i.e., when the search was repeated for the number of citations for a paper in the same time period on a later date, a larger number of citations was retrieved). They conclude that coverage seems to have stabilized over the more recent years [27]. ...
... Furthermore, Winter et al. [27] concluded in a longitudinal study that the number of citations substantially increased in GS for the same articles retroactively (i.e., when the search was repeated for the number of citations for a paper in the same time period on a later date, a larger number of citations was retrieved). They conclude that coverage seems to have stabilized over the more recent years [27]. However, in a recent investigation Martín-Martín and López-Cózar [26] found large fluctuations in coverage of literature by GS, which they conclude is a clear limitation of GS's use as a data source for bibliometrics. ...
Article
Context: In software engineering, snowball sampling has been used as a supplementary and primary search strategy. The current guidelines recommend using Google Scholar (GS) for snowball sampling. However, the use of GS presents several challenges when using it as a source for citations and references. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and usefulness of two leading citation databases (GS and Scopus) for use in snowball sampling search. Method: We relied on a published study that has used snowball sampling as a search strategy and GS as the citation source. We used its primary studies to compute precision and recall for Scopus. Results: In this particular case, Scopus was highly effective with 95% recall and had better precision of 5.1% compared to GS’s 2.8%. Moreover, Scopus found nine additional relevant papers. On average, one would read approximately 15 extra papers in GS than Scopus to identify one additional relevant paper. Furthermore, Scopus supports batch downloading of both citations and papers’ references, has better quality metadata, and does better source filtering. Conclusion: This study suggests that Scopus seems to be more effective and useful for snowball sampling than GS for systematic secondary studies attempting to identify peer-reviewed literature.
... It would be necessary however to carry out the analyses in time series, in order to determine whether anomalous values (deviated from the starting hypothesis) are due to one-time or systemic errors. In this sense, the dynamism of GS introduces another drawback, since the access of its crawlers to previously closed sources, the effectiveness of its parsers, as well as the digitalization of printed articles can generate a significant retroactive growth (De Winter, Zadpoor, and Dodou 2014), making the correlations dependent not only on the year of publication but also on the year of measurement. ...
... The role of the retroactive growth in these correlations has not been treated so far. De Winter, Zadpoor and Dodou (2014) compare the retroactive and actual growth of GS versus WoS through a longitudinal analysis. However, this study is performed from the point of view of citation counts, not productivity. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to ascertain the suitability of GS's url-based method as a valid approximation of universities' academic output measures, taking into account three aspects (retroactive growth, correlation, and coverage). To do this, a set of 100 Turkish universities were selected as a case study. The productivity in Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and GS (2000 to 2013) were captured in two different measurement iterations (2014 and 2018). In addition, a total of 18,174 documents published by a subset of 14 research-focused universities were retrieved from WoS, verifying their presence in GS within the official university web domain. Findings suggest that the retroactive growth in GS is unpredictable and dependent on each university, making this parameter hard to evaluate at the institutional level. Otherwise, the correlation of productivity between GS (url-based method) and WoS and Scopus (selected sources) is moderately positive, even though it varies depending on the university, the year of publication, and the year of measurement. Finally, only 16% out of 18,174 articles analyzed were indexed in the official university website, although up to 84% were indexed in other GS sources. This work proves that the url-based method to calculate institutional productivity in GS is not a good proxy for the total number of publications indexed in WoS and Scopus, at least in the national context analyzed. However, the main reason is not directly related to the operation of GS, but with a lack of universities' commitment to open access.
... On 19 th September 2019, a literature review was undertaken on Web of Science (WoS). WoS was chosen since the quality of the results was the priority, and it is known to ensure the academic rigour of journals included in the results, and Google Scholar is not (De Winter et al., 2013;Web of Science Group, 2019). Google Scholar is also thought to generate incorrect meta-data (De Winter et al., 2013), which was to be important in this review. ...
... WoS was chosen since the quality of the results was the priority, and it is known to ensure the academic rigour of journals included in the results, and Google Scholar is not (De Winter et al., 2013;Web of Science Group, 2019). Google Scholar is also thought to generate incorrect meta-data (De Winter et al., 2013), which was to be important in this review. Lastly, WoS allows for the Plain Text export of search results required for the linguistic analysis. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study explores the effect of common name choice for Lycaon pictus on donation behaviour and public perception, an investigation inspired by use of a less common vernacular name by the BBC in their 2018 series Dynasties. Accordingly, journal articles on Web of Science are reviewed to determine the preference in research, followed by the analysis of the results from two online surveys completed by the general public. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey, in which all participants unknowingly saw one of four variations in common name, establishes the influence exerted on donating behaviour by name choice, with a word association survey uncovering unconscious associations for elements of each variant. Findings indicate “African wild dog” to be preferred in journal articles, with increasingly few exceptions in recent years. However, the surveys established that, whilst there is no significant link between name choice and donation size, there is a significant relationship between choice of words and how negatively they are perceived. This study argues that “painted dog” is the most positive option for use by charitable organisations and in education, although not without its own challenges, but also that the conflict caused by this naming debate is potentially equally as harmful to painted dog conservation as the debate itself.
... Google Scholar, which started as a bibliographic data search system in 2004, has emerged over time as a popular bibliographic database and has been explored in several previous studies in different contexts. While some studies evaluated it as a source of scientific information and compared its coverage with other bibliographic databases (Jacso, 2005;Mayr & Walter, 2007;Walters, 2007;Falagas et al., 2008;Aguillo, 2012;De Winter et al., 2014;Harzing & Alakangas, 2016;Halevi et al., 2017;Martin-Martin et al., Martín-Martín, Orduña-Malea, et al., 2018;Gusenbauer, 2019); several others highlighted the role of Google Scholar in providing evidence of open access of scientific publications (Orduña-Malea & López-Cózar, 2015;Norris et al., 2008;Jamali & Nabavi, 2015;Martin-Martin et al., Martín-Martín, Costas, et al., 2018). Some studies have also focused their attention on different metrics computed by Google Scholar and their usefulness (Jacso, 2008;Jacso, 2012;Lopez-Cozar & Cabezas-Clavijo, 2013;Bohannon, 2014;Orduña-Malea & López-Cózar, 2014;Martin-Martin et al., 2017). ...
... RG score can be used as an effective indicator for measuring individual research performance (Yu et al., 2016) ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as the older articles (Thelwall & Kousha, 2017a) 4 Studies on computational aspects & usability of RG score RG score as a reputation indicator Correlations among RG metrics RG score lacks transparency & reproducibility and depends too much on journal impact factor (Jordan, 2015;Kraker & Lex, 2015) RG score struggles with the deployment of engagement metrics (Nicholas et al., 2016) and RG score should not be mistaken for scientific or academic reputation indicator (Copiello & Bonifaci, 2018 Highest correlation is found between RG score and number of publications added by scholar to profile (Shrivastava & Mahajan, 2017) GS as information provider on Open access publications GS is found to be most comprehensive database (Gusenbauer, 2019;Martín-Martín, Orduña-Malea, et al., 2018), but lacks quality control and indexing guidelines (Jasco, 2005;Halevi et al., 2017). GS can be used for cross-disciplinary research comparison if certain improved versions of h-index are used (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016) GS cannot substitute abstracting & indexing databases due to incomplete citation & abstract information (Mayr & Walter, 2007;Walters, 2007) and overrepresentation of local contents (Aguillo, 2012) Improvement of metadata & search functions and stricter control against citation manipulation are challenges for GS (De Winter et al., 2014) GS has limitations in comprehensively representing OA content due to limitations in repository design (Orduña-Malea & López-Cózar, 2015) GS is effective in identifying and indexing OA articles (Norris et al., 2008) and identifying influential articles GS is less immune to manipulation of publication and citation information and predatory journals (Beall, 2014;Bohannon, 2014;Kolata, 2017) 6 Exploration of RG and GS together Comparison of citation tracking of RG and GS at journal level Experience-wise distribution of profiles Explorations on Author-level metrics (ALM) ...
Article
Full-text available
ResearchGate has emerged as a popular professional network for scientists and researchers in a very short span. Similar to Google Scholar, the ResearchGate indexing uses an automatic crawling algorithm that extracts bibliographic data, citations, and other information about scholarly articles from various sources. However, it has been observed that the two platforms often show different publication and citation data for the same institutions, journals, and authors. While several previous studies analysed different aspects of ResearchGate and Google Scholar, the quantum of differences in publications, citations, and metrics between the two and the probable reasons for the same are not explored much. This article, therefore, attempts to bridge this research gap by analysing and measuring the differences in publications, citations, and different metrics of the two platforms for a large data set of highly cited authors. The results indicate that there are significantly high differences in publications and citations for the same authors captured by the two platforms, with Google Scholar having higher counts for a vast majority of the cases. The different metrics computed by the two platforms also differ in their values, showing different degrees of correlation. The coverage policy, indexing errors, author attribution mechanism, and strategy to deal with predatory publishing are found to be the main probable reasons for the differences in the two platforms.
... A scoping literature review [40], [41] using Google Scholar [42], [43] was used as the primary database for an exploratory search as it provided the researcher with a larger dataset (as compared to WoS) from a wide array of sources [44, p. 61], [45]. This research into Industry 4.0 and its enabling technologies, including those related to XR and blockchain (including NFT), began in 2016. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Caribbean’s metaverse evolution accelerated due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper focuses on the metaverse, XR, and NFT and emphasises the Caribbean’s contribution to the virtual environment. A bibliometric analysis of metaverse-themed research identified the rapid increase in publications in 2021 and 2022 and that titles with XR (AR, VR or MR) occurred three times more than blockchain (including NFT). An evolving dataset was created based on a continuous scoping literature review of Industry 4.0 and its enabling technologies. This enables the creation of a new definition of the metaverse, understanding the UX benefits of XR and its applications' areas of foci, highlighting investment in XR-based projects, and illustrating the Caribbean-themed NFT and XR projects. This dataset revealed that UX benefits are linked to XR element features that are relevant, contextual, customised, hands-free and intuitive. It also revealed that XR applications have areas of foci that can enable machine control or data interface, designing and testing, remote support, education, customer engagement, remote collaboration or entertainment and escapism. Analysis of 54 XR papers revealed that the most popular area of focus was education (including training, learning and understanding). An evaluation of global investments in XR development showed funding ranged from USD 70K to USD 100M, and there needs to be focused financial support for Caribbean projects. This justifies continued research into factors influencing funding and encouraging Caribbean XR development. In addition, this research promotes regionally developed XR projects and NFTs. The paper's originality is the reductionist definition of the metaverse: a space designed for users by users, which can satisfy whomever, whatever, however, wherever and whenever. It manifests the user's extended reality, facilitated through XR technologies that enable Industry 4.0 (I4.0). As such, the metaverse can be considered the practical implementation of I4.0.
... Google Scholar is currently an open-access database, launched in November 2004 as a single repository for scholarly information for meta-research. The size of the old platform of GS was estimated at 160 million documents as of May 2014 and it was in beta version [51]. GS has wider coverage on scientific documents, and indexs the materials from trusted sources [52]. ...
Article
Full-text available
abstract: In the current article, subject-related research metrics by the most popular scientometrics platforms with the capability of citation count are investigated. Different quantitative analyses have been carried out to classify the most to the least cited subject areas that are useful to show the most active and dynamic fields in research. Subject areas are classified based on the statistical analyses and number of received citations in the period of search. Numerous articles were analysed from top-ranked journals in all research fields introduced by Scimago journal classification. The comprehensive dataset was generated in 27 research subject areas including 315 subject categories and 81 high-ranked journals. The overlap of investigated citations was not taken to the account. To remove the effect of overlap of publications that are indexed by more than one platform, the obtained results are compared and analysed independently. Results showed that the highest number of citations was related to sciences and subject areas that are deeper in research. WoS showed better performance over Scopus for subject-related evaluations that is related to the recent expansions on coverage of different materials such as textbooks and proceedings. Some subject areas such as computer science due to highly-dynamic nature and mathematics because of difficulty in concepts were found to have the lowest research metrics and the lowest number of high-cited publications in the period of this investigation. Results of histogram analysis showed Google Scholar (GS) cited less publication for low-cited papers than Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). In contrast, for high-cited publications, GS found to have higher performance that is related to the Matthew effect. WoS found to have the best consistency in citation coverage in most of the investigated subject areas.
... However, the use of GS in bibliometric analysis is not without drawbacks: research has pointed to the automated inclusion of documents in GS through web-crawling ( Bar-Ilan et al., 2007) or the lack of an indexing strategy (de Winter et al., 2014) as a source of errors and/or inconsistencies. Namely, the unconstrained nature of the content that GS indexes (Aguillo, 2012) and the lack of a quality control process (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016) makes it a less attractive source that further complicates the document selection strategy. ...
Article
Full-text available
The last two decades have witnessed an increasing scholarly interest on music consumption. This interest can be explained, at least partly, to the relevance of music as a form of cultural consumption and the profound changes the sector has undergone. This paper performs a bibliometric analysis of the literature on music consumption research. In doing so, a database comprising 455 academic documents on the fields of business, economics, and management, was reviewed following a systematic procedure. Through it we identify the intellectual roots and the methodological evolution of the field. Furthermore, text mining was applied to analyse the themes included in the research agenda and their evolution. As a result, potential topics, approaches, and methods for future music consumption research are proposed.
... While somewhat limited in scope when launched (Jacsó 2005), the coverage of journal articles indexed within Google Scholar has since expanded considerably. By 2014, de Winter et al. found that the majority of recent works indexed within Web of Science, often considered the gold standard multi-disciplinary A&I tool, were retrievable through Google Scholar (de Winter, Zadpoor, and Dodou 2014). By 2018, Gusenbauer had concluded that Google Scholar had become "the most comprehensive academic search engine" (Gusenbauer 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Compare journal coverage of abstract and indexing tools commonly used within academic science and engineering research. Methods: Title lists of Compendex, Inspec, Reaxys, SciFinder, and Web of Science were provided by their respective publishers. These lists were imported into Excel and the overlap of the ISSN/EISSNs and journal titles was determined using the VLOOKUP command, which determines if the value in one cell can be found in a column of other cells. Results: There is substantial overlap between the Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index, the largest database with 17,014 titles, and Compendex (63.6%), Inspec (71.0%), Reaxys (67.0%), and SciFinder (75.8%). SciFinder also overlaps heavily with Reaxys (75.9%). Web of Science and Compendex combined contain 77.6% of the titles within Inspec. Conclusion: Flat or decreasing library budgets combined with increasing journal prices result in an unsustainable system that will require a calculated allocation of resources at many institutions. The overlap of commonly indexed journals among abstracting and indexing tools could serve as one way to determine how these resources should be allocated.
... Google Scholar has been the subject of numerous studies, aimed, above all, at assessing its quality [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] and search effectiveness [45,54], determining whether it is a suitable tool for conducting bibliometric studies [55][56][57][58][59][60][61] and evaluating author impact using the h-index [25,56,[62][63][64][65][66][67]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The visibility of academic articles or conference papers depends on their being easily found in academic search engines, above all in Google Scholar. To enhance this visibility, search engine optimization (SEO) has been applied in recent years to academic search engines in order to optimize documents and, thereby, ensure they are better ranked in search pages (i.e., academic search engine optimization or ASEO). To achieve this degree of optimization, we first need to further our understanding of Google Scholar’s relevance ranking algorithm, so that, based on this knowledge, we can highlight or improve those characteristics that academic documents already present and which are taken into account by the algorithm. This study seeks to advance our knowledge in this line of research by determining whether the language in which a document is published is a positioning factor in the Google Scholar relevance ranking algorithm. Here, we employ a reverse engineering research methodology based on a statistical analysis that uses Spearman’s correlation coefficient. The results obtained point to a bias in multilingual searches conducted in Google Scholar with documents published in languages other than in English being systematically relegated to positions that make them virtually invisible. This finding has important repercussions, both for conducting searches and for optimizing positioning in Google Scholar, being especially critical for articles on subjects that are expressed in the same way in English and other languages, the case, for example, of trademarks, chemical compounds, industrial products, acronyms, drugs, diseases, etc.
... It is noted that the ASCE publishes online lists of most cited papers in the three preceding years. The authors manually recorded the number of citations using Google Scholar, because it covers the broad spectrum of publications (Harzing and Alakangas, 2016;De Winter et al., 2014), and it performs well in finding obscure or less-updated information (Falagas et al., 2008). The average number of citations was calculated across CE specialty areas and CEM sub-disciplines, which is the sum of number of citations received by the most cited papers divided by the number of most cited papers in the corresponding classification. ...
Conference Paper
There are several metrics used to evaluate academic publications, including number of citations, h-index, and others. While these metrics are directly related to rewards in the academic community, it is debated whether they correctly reflect the true impact of research. As such, there is a need to clearly interpret and understand such metrics. The goal of this paper is to investigate the citation metrics used to assess academic publications in civil engineering (CE) with a considerable focus on construction engineering and management (CEM). The investigation of these two research fields is important since each one of them has its own characteristics. As such, the authors performed a global comparison between the different CE research specialty areas, with the CEM being one of them. On a more specific level, a similar comparison was performed on the different sub-disciplines in the CEM field. In addition, the authors investigated the citation metrics of the most cited publications in CE and CEM. After analyzing 67,800 journal papers, it was found that the number of publications and citations in CEM is lower than other CE specialty areas. The findings revealed also that there are several factors that influence the exposure and popularity of academic publications, such as research community size, connections to other disciplinary fields, and trendiness of the research field. Moreover, it was concluded that a single metric should not be considered alone to assess the quality and reach of publications and authors. However, a more complete and broad perspective is required. Ultimately, this research provides an evidence-based study of citation metrics in the field of CE specialty areas and the CEM sub-disciplines. This research also proposes guidelines that shall be considered when assessing and comparing publications across different research areas or even within the same field.
... We began by identifying relevant literature via keyword searches on Google Scholar with a review of the top 50 search results as well as backward and forward searches of the references. We selected Google Scholar over other databases as it is currently the most comprehensive collection of papers, books and conference proceedings for academic searches (Gusenbauer, 2019) and is expanding rapidly compared with other databases (de Winter et al., 2014). Google Scholar can be regarded as a combination of multiple databases and offers "substantial extra coverage" (Martín-Martín et al., 2018, p. 1) compared with other services such as Scopus or Web of Science. ...
Article
Purpose This paper aims to present a conceptual framework for the emerging field of green energy platform economics. Design/methodology/approach The authors develop a conceptual framework based on a careful review of the existing literature, and research into the current provider landscape and insights from academic and industry experts. The authors also examine the implications for the energy sector’s value chain and derive a research agenda based on those areas where research still needs to be pursued. Findings The framework combines the spatial characteristics of platform models (residential/mobile) with the different types of platform business model (B2C/C2C/C2Grid). Using this framework, the authors illustrate how green energy platforms can fundamentally disrupt the conventional electricity value chain by enabling prosumers to market their assets, creating new arenas for trading and collaboration, and by increasing transparency and competition in the sector. The authors also identify areas where more research is required, particularly empirical studies into energy forms other than electricity and analyses of currently underrepresented aspects such as user interfaces and social interactions. Social implications Green energy platforms have the potential to contribute meaningfully to the energy sector’s decarbonization, digitalization and decentralization, and hence to the deceleration of climate change. Originality/value This paper is among the first to provide a holistic perspective on platformization in the energy sector. It also offers a new perspective on platform economics in general that is based on the unique characteristics of energy as an economic good (intangibility, homogeneity, credence good).
... Second, the use of Google Scholar as opposed to more traditional databases such as PsycINFO as our primary search engine could be a potential limitation, based on the criticisms of some researchers (e.g., Boeker et al., 2013;Giustini & Boulos, 2013). Conversely, other authors have praised Google Scholar as "an invaluable tool for conducting literature research" (de Winter et al., 2014(de Winter et al., , p. 1562, and have supported it as the first and potentially sole search engine for reviews and metaanalyses (e.g., Gehanno et al., 2013). Nonetheless, we supplemented our Google Scholar search with various additional strategies. ...
Article
Full-text available
We reviewed the current state of the literature on the intervention‐based development of interpersonal skills (e.g., teamwork, leadership) and intrapersonal skills (e.g., personality, motivation, etc.) relevant to success in workplace contexts. We adopted a multidisciplinary approach to our review, evaluating research from 39 reviews and meta‐analyses from several fields such as educational psychology, industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, medicine, and personality psychology, among others, to examine the extent to which noncognitive constructs change as a result of intervention. We discuss key findings and trends and conclude by identifying gaps in the literature and directions for future research. Overall, findings suggest optimism regarding the malleability of noncognitive constructs.
... The Google Scholar database, which came up in the same year (2004) as that of Scopus, has also been used for different bibliometric studies, however, less commonly for research assessment exercises. (see for example Mayr & Walter, 2007;Falagas et al., 2008;De Winter et al., 2014;Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). During the last few years, several new databases, such as Microsoft Academic Search and Dimensions, have attracted wide attention of the bibliometrics research community. ...
Preprint
Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article attempts to compare the journal coverage of the three databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases have been used for the purpose of identifying the overlapping and unique journals covered in the databases. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive coverage, with 82.22% more journals covered as compared to Web of Science and 48.17% more journals covered as compared to Scopus. We also analysed the research outputs for 20 highly productive countries for the 2010-2019 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank and global share of different countries. In addition to variations in overall coverage of research output from different countries, the three databases appear to have differential coverage of different disciplines.
... The WoS has a reputation for supervised selection and inclusion of materials based on high-quality and high-impact indexing by humans, consistent and structured documentation, better accuracy of results, and reduced duplicates and false positives. 32 Also, the WoS seems preferred by organizations as a standard. 33 Search results were restricted to peer-reviewed articles (journals, conferences, and books) in order to ensure the quality and credibility of outcomes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Simulation can provide a useful means to understand issues linked to industrial network operations. For transparent, collaborative, cost-effective solutions development, and to attract the broadest interest base, simulation is critical and open source suggested, because it costs less to access, install, and use. This study contributes new insights from security and functionality characteristics metrics to underscore the use and effectiveness of open source simulators. Several open source simulators span applications in communications and wireless sensor networks, industrial control systems, and the Industrial Internet of Things. Some drivers for their use span are as follows: supported license types; programming languages; operating systems platforms; user interface types; documentation and communication types; citations; code commits; and number of contributors. Research in these simulators is built around performance and optimization relative to flexibility, scalability, mobility, and active user support. No single simulator addresses all these conceivable characteristics. In addition to modeling contexts that match real-world scenarios and issues, an effective open source simulator needs to demonstrate credibility, which can be gained partly through actively engaging experts from interdisciplinary teams along with user contributions integrated under tight editorial controls. Government-led policies and regulations are also necessary to support their wider awareness and more productive use for real-world purposes.
... Multiple search strategies were used, such as database searching (Google Scholar, ResearchGate), scanning the reference lists of papers, using the 'cited by' feature of Google Scholar, snowballing strategies (Jalali & Wohlin, 2012), and asking fellow researchers for relevant studies. Most searches were conducted using Google Scholar, as it is the most comprehensive search engine, especially for works of the 21st century (De Winter, Zadpoor, & Dodou, 2014;Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea, Thelwall, & López-Cózar, 2018). Typically used keywords were 'takeover', 'take over', and 'transition of control' in combination with domain-specific keywords, to minimize false positives (e.g., 'automated driving', 'driverless', or the names of often-cited authors such as 'Bengler' or 'Merat'). ...
Article
An important question in automated driving research is how quickly drivers take over control of the vehicle in response to a critical event or a take-over request. Although a large number of studies have been performed, results vary strongly. In this study, we investigated mean take-over times from 129 studies with SAE level 2 automation or higher. We used three complementary approaches: (1) a within-study analysis, in which differences in mean take-over time were assessed for pairs of experimental conditions, (2) a between-study analysis, in which correlations between experimental conditions and mean take-over times were assessed, and (3) a linear mixed-effects model combining between-study and within-study effects. The three methods showed that a shorter mean take-over time is associated with a higher urgency of the situation, not using a handheld device, not performing a visual non-driving task, having experienced another take-over scenario before in the experiment, and receiving an auditory or vibrotactile take-over request as compared to a visual-only or no take-over request. A consistent effect of age was not observed. We also found the mean and standard deviation of the take-over time were highly correlated, indicating that the mean is predictive of variability. Our findings point to directions for new research, in particular concerning the distinction between drivers’ ability and motivation to take over, and the roles of urgency and prior experience.
... Google Scholar has been criticised because of its lack of search accuracy and tendency to retrieve low quality publications (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). Recent research, however, has found that Google Scholar displays stability over time in its results and offers a non-biased comparison across disciplines (De Winter et al., 2014;Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). Moreover, in these comparison studies authors have concluded that Google Scholar provides broader coverage for most disciplines and that the WoS and Scopus can provide complementary results. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article brings together empirical academic research on accountability in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Via a systematic literature review, we explored how well grounded are concerns about PPPs eroding accountability. We investigated over 50 publications on PPPs, published between 1983 and 2017. These studies were analysed in lights of a categorisation framework of publications to map out the process through which accountability takes place in practice for PPPs. Four key accountability mechanisms stand out in our analysis: behaviour, information, evaluation and sanction. Based upon this analysis, we identified four main account-holders and the mechanisms they employ to participate in the overall accountability process of PPPs. Since none of them can exert full control over the mechanisms of accountability available to them, we argue that this unbalanced and chaotic state of contradicting and overlapping demands of accountability indeed generates accountability deficits, but it can be turned into an advantage if interdependency and complementarity between account-holders is further validated.
... The remaining databases were thus Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and PubMed. ACDBs such as Scopus and Web of Science use a selective procedure to safeguard against lowquality or low-impact material being indexed [33], while Cochrane and PubMed are expected to add more clinically relevant studies. ...
Article
Full-text available
Gait analysis has traditionally been carried out in a laboratory environment using expensive equipment, but, recently, reliable, affordable, and wearable sensors have enabled integration into clinical applications as well as use during activities of daily living. Real-time gait analysis is key to the development of gait rehabilitation techniques and assistive devices such as neuroprostheses. This article presents a systematic review of wearable sensors and techniques used in real-time gait analysis, and their application to pathological gait. From four major scientific databases, we identified 1262 articles of which 113 were analyzed in full-text. We found that heel strike and toe off are the most sought-after gait events. Inertial measurement units (IMU) are the most widely used wearable sensors and the shank and foot are the preferred placements. Insole pressure sensors are the most common sensors for ground-truth validation for IMU-based gait detection. Rule-based techniques relying on threshold or peak detection are the most widely used gait detection method. The heterogeneity of evaluation criteria prevented quantitative performance comparison of all methods. Although most studies predicted that the proposed methods would work on pathological gait, less than one third were validated on such data. Clinical applications of gait detection algorithms were considered, and we recommend a combination of IMU and rule-based methods as an optimal solution.
... The Google Scholar database, which came up in the same year (2004) as that of Scopus, has also been used for different bibliometric studies, however, less commonly for research assessment exercises. (see for example Mayr & Walter, 2007;Falagas et al., 2008;De Winter et al., 2014;Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). During the last few years, several new databases, such as Microsoft Academic Search and Dimensions, have attracted wide attention of the bibliometrics research community. ...
Article
Full-text available
Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.
... To tackle the above-mentioned aims, we made an overview of the literature on historic adaptation measures for built heritage. For this, we used the scientific database Google Scholar (GS), using the following keywords fire/flood/decay and heritage and adapt; GS was chosen over ISI Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, because it samples a wider variety of publications [40] and that most papers indexed in WoS are also available in GS [41]. For practical reasons, the analysis only included articles written in English, being aware of the limitation to one search language might have led to loss of papers of interest for the study. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to highlight the relevance of ancient international adaptation measures of built heritage and how can they be relevant and applied to Norway. Specifically, it will focus on historic measures applied to mitigate extreme hazards (fire and floods) and slow degradation (decay) of built heritage. For this, we used the scientific database Google Scholar (GS) and 20 papers and reports were deemed relevant for our analysis. There is a limited body of literature (in English) addressing decay and fire, but a richer one referring to floods. The analysis highlights the fact that there is a gap between theory and practice within contemporary adaptation measures (which is also highlighted by previous studies). It was also shown that historic climate adaptation measures are passed on through generations and traditions, rather than scientific research, a finding also supported by UNESCO.
... The result also confirmed that the two databases not only covered more publications but also had higher citation counts of these documents. In a similar vein, research of this type starts with a controlled set of documents, which usually consists of article lists maintained by academics or institutions, and iteratively searches for these documents as well as their citations in candidate databases (Bar-Ilan 2010;de Winter et al. 2014;Harzing 2019;Hug and Brändle 2017). Although these studies have provided insight into the coverage of different data sources, their analyses were based on small and different sets of documents. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
As an important biomedical database, PubMed provides users with free access to abstracts of its documents. However, citations between these documents need to be collected from external data sources. Although previous studies have investigated the coverage of various data sources, the quality of citations is underexplored. In response, this study compares the coverage and citation quality of five freely available data sources on 30 million PubMed documents, including OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI), Dimensions, Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), and Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC). Three gold standards and five metrics are introduced to evaluate the correctness and completeness of citations. Our results indicate that Dimensions is the most comprehensive data source that provides references for 62.4% of PubMed documents, outperforming the official NIH-OCC dataset (56.7%). Over 90% of citation links in other data sources can also be found in Dimensions. The coverage of MAG, COCI, and S2ORC is 59.6%, 34.7%, and 23.5%, respectively. Regarding the citation quality, Dimensions and NIH-OCC achieve the best overall results. Almost all data sources have a precision higher than 90%, but their recall is much lower. All databases have better performances on recent publications than earlier ones. Meanwhile, the gaps between different data sources have diminished for the documents published in recent years. This study provides evidence for researchers to choose suitable PubMed citation sources, which is also helpful for evaluating the citation quality of free bibliographic databases.
... It includes different citation databases focused on specific fields (e.g., the Social Science Citation Index for Social Science), covering more than 20,000 journals, conference proceedings and books. Alternative databases can be either considered to retrieve bibliometric data, like Scopus or Google Scholar, and there is an intense debate concerning which data source is better (see de Winter et al., 2014;Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). Nevertheless, the quality of WoS information is often considered the highest. ...
Article
Full-text available
The concept of Regional Competitiveness (RC), in the last years, had a considerable influence on the development of strategies and policies focused on sub-national areas from an economic and social perspective. In particular, RC attracted the substantial attention of policymakers due to the possibility of evaluating and comparing different territories without any established political or conceptual framework. Conversely, scholars have long debated the meaningfulness of territorial competitiveness itself and, in case, which dimensions have to be included. This study reviewed the most recent scientific literature concerning RC with a bibliometric approach based on topic modelling. The use of a textual-based statistical approach offered an interesting insight into the RC research domain. We highlighted the topics discussed by scholars, showing the patterns emerging across years and from different publication types, and marked the differences between the vocabulary used by authors coming from EU and non-EU countries. Finally, a comparison between the RC issues coming from the literature analysis with the RC issues defined by policymakers tried to link the two standpoints followed by the institutions and the academia in a more comprehensive conceptual framework.
... Although alternative databases can be considered to retrieve bibliometric data sets, such as Web of Science or Google Scholar, our choice reflects our needs as we have found it appropriate to rely on the largest searchable and continuously updated citational source(Rew, 2009). About this, however, an appropriate clarification must be made, i.e., it must be said that a heated debate has arisen on which database is the best(Bar-Ilan et al, 2007; Vieira and Gomes 2009;De Winter et al. 2014; Har-zing and Alakangas, 2016), a very difficult choice as all databases lend themselves optimally to our work, what fundamentally changes are some small things that can make one more suitable instead of another. Perhaps what we have been able to appreciate ...
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, statistical methods such as bibliometrics have increasingly intensified to analyse books, articles, and other publications. Bibliometric methods, as techniques to measure the information distribution models, are frequently used in the field of information science and social research. The main purpose of this article is to offer scholars a general framework for the comparison between positive and negative aspects of bibliometrics, on the methods and tools used. Therefore, both the strengths and the critical points will be highlighted, to obtain a complete and detailed overview of the entire argument. In the methodological part, a bibliometric analysis will be applied to various case studies, such as with the Generalized Error Distribution, analysing and commenting on the data, and using the Bibliometrix software. The results suggest that in the future there will be greater consolidation of bibliometrics, as the introduction of increasingly advanced technologies will create new tools and methods characterized by a high degree of automation and speed.
... Our research focused on peer-reviewed literature, since our interest was to define the level of interest and ecological research effort addressed by the academic scientific community to bird trends and status in relation to the Natura 2000 network. The articles for our review were selected through a search in the main fields (title, abstract and keywords) of both the Web of Science Core Collection ™ (WoSCC) and Scopus ™ databases, to retrieve consistent and accurate results (Wilson et al. 2007, Falagas et al. 2008, de Winter et al. 2014. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Natura 2000 network, the pillar of biodiversity conservation in Europe, still shows some knowledge gaps after almost 30 years since its implementation. As birds are a taxonomic group that is underrepresented in the literature related to Natura 2000 compared to their importance in the EU Directives, this review investigated the characteristics of the scientific research dedicated to birds in relation to Natura 2000. This review focused on 169 peer-reviewed articles covering a period of 25 years (1995–2019). Most studies were set within single Natura 2000 site or regions within countries, and concerned terrestrial habitats, particularly wetlands. The terrestrial Mediterranean biogeographical region and marine Atlantic region had the greatest number of publications, while Spain, Italy, and France were the countries with the highest number of reviewed articles. The number of publications was correlated to Natura 2000 coverage at both country and biogeographical region level. Bird species were studied mainly at a community or single-species level and most publications studied distribution and occurrence of the bird species of interest, while very few assessed the conservation status of the species. Only a few articles set within Natura 2000 sites addressed the issues of habitat suitability for birds or the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Both Annex I and non-Annex I bird species were examined in the literature, with most species having decreasing population trends at the European scale. Future research on bird conservation and Natura 2000 should focus on marine ecosystems as well as habitats that have received less attention despite their important role in a changing future (alpine and urban types). Moreover, future studies should encompass larger spatial scales and those species for which status and trends are still not thoroughly investigated. Finally, it would be important to enhance research efforts on the conservation status and effectiveness in relation to the network.
... The variety of publications devoted to comparing individual abstract databases is enormous; one can find a suitable comparison for the most famous databases. For example, the authors of [12] have found that Google Scholar indexed the most recent papers indexed in WoS, and now they can be found through Google Scholar. The ratio of quantity and quality of citations, threats to WoS, and weaknesses of Google Scholar are discussed. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper aims to briefly compare and analyze the results of queries to IEEE Xplore and the leading abstract databases Scopus and Web of Science to identify research trends. Some errors were revealed in the Author Keywords in Web of Science. Therefore, a more detailed analysis that involved comparing various types of key terms was made only for IEEE Xplore and Scopus platforms. The study employed IEEE Access journal metadata as indexed on both platforms. Sample matching for IEEE Xplore and Scopus was achieved by comparing DOI. The IEEE Xplore metadata contains more key term types, which provides an advantage in analyzing research trends. Using NSPEC Controlled Terms from expert-compiled vocabulary provides more stable data, which gives an advantage when considering the change of terms over time. Apriori, an algorithm for finding association rules, was used to compare the co-occurrence of the terms for a more detailed description of sample subjects on both platforms. VOSviewer was used to analyze trends in scientific research based on IEEE Xplore data. The 2011-2021 ten-year period was divided into two sub-intervals for comparing the occurrence of Author Keywords, IEEE Terms, and NSPEC Controlled Terms. Bibliometric data of the IEEE conference proceedings was used to illustrate the importance of context in estimating the growth rate of publishing activity on a topic of interest.
... One noteworthy fact is that all the above comparisons are domain-specific. Cross-disciplinary comparisons between available IRA systems are only a handful to this date, and most of which focus only on one aspect of functionality (de Winter et al., 2014;Harzing and Alakangas, 2016). As an ideal IRA system is designed to "assist" researchers, upon evaluating such a system, it is crucial to consider: (1) how the system engages its users, and (2) whether the system design is aligned the underlying research process. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
There is a current scarcity of tested methods to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence-based science discovery tools. Iris.ai, an international start-up developing text understanding technology and products, has developed a novel framework for performing such evaluation tasks. The framework, organized around live events, involves a systematic and cross-disciplinary comparison that focuses on productivity gains and takes into account user engagement. Under this format, referred to as Scithon™, event participants are asked to address, in a compressed time frame, the early stages of a research challenge put forth by a third party. Submitted results are then evaluated externally by domain experts. The logged data, including user engagement with the system, is compared against the outcome of the Scithon™. In this paper, we present in detail the full mechanics of the Scithon™ and the results obtained from a series of Scithon™ competitions run since 2016, where the presented framework is used to evaluate the productivity gains of Iris.ai 's own intelligent research assistant. Initial findings show that, compared to conventional evaluation frameworks for search engines, Scithon™ is a suitable platform for benchmarking intelligent research assistants and is able to identify advantages and disadvantages of such systems in deeper detail and complexity. Iris.ai provides the usage of the platform under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, which means we welcome the community to freely adopt its name and format with an appropriate acknowledgement to this paper and its authors.
... The result also confirmed that the two databases not only covered more publications but also had higher citation counts of these documents. In a similar vein, research of this type starts with a controlled set of documents, which usually consists of article lists maintained by academics or institutions, and iteratively searches for these documents as well as their citations in candidate databases (Bar-Ilan 2010;de Winter et al. 2014;Harzing 2019;Hug and Brändle 2017). Although these studies have provided insight into the coverage of different data sources, their analyses were based on small and different sets of documents. ...
Article
Full-text available
As an important biomedical database, PubMed provides users with free access to abstracts of its documents. However, citations between these documents need to be collected from external data sources. Although previous studies have investigated the coverage of various data sources, the quality of citations is underexplored. In response, this study compares the coverage and citation quality of five freely available data sources on 30 million PubMed documents, including OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI), Dimensions, Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), National Institutes of Health’s Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), and Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC). Three gold standards and five metrics are introduced to evaluate the correctness and completeness of citations. Our results indicate that Dimensions is the most comprehensive data source that provides references for 62.4% of PubMed documents, outperforming the official NIH-OCC dataset (56.7%). Over 90% of citation links in other data sources can also be found in Dimensions. The coverage of MAG, COCI, and S2ORC is 59.6%, 34.7%, and 23.5%, respectively. Regarding the citation quality, Dimensions and NIH-OCC achieve the best overall results. Almost all data sources have a precision higher than 90%, but their recall is much lower. All databases have better performances on recent publications than earlier ones. Meanwhile, the gaps between different data sources have diminished for the documents published in recent years. This study provides evidence for researchers to choose suitable PubMed citation sources, which is also helpful for evaluating the citation quality of free bibliographic databases.
... PhD theses or preprints). In addition, we used Google Scholar, which is a fast-growing and relatively comprehensive database that also records non-published and non-English records (de Winter et al., 2014;Prins et al., 2016), and sifted the first 500 records sorted by relevance. The covered time period ranged from inception of the respective database up until November 30, 2020. ...
Article
Full-text available
A pre-performance routine (PPR) refers to a set of task-relevant thoughts and actions an athlete systematically engages in prior to performance execution. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of the PPR intervention to facilitate sport performance. The meta-analysis included 112 effect sizes from pre–post and experimental designs in low-pressure and pressurised conditions. Extensive PPRs with several preparatory elements as well as specific stand-alone PPRs, such as left-hand dynamic handgrip and quiet eye, were analysed. Three-level random-effects models were used for analysis, utilising Knapp-Hartung adjustments and restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Results showed a significant but small effect of PPRs on sport performance in pre–post designs (SMC = 0.31, 95% CI [0.18, 0.44]) and moderate-to-large effects in experimental designs, both under low-pressure (Hedges’ g = 0.64, 95% CI [0.45, 0.83]) and pressurised conditions (Hedges’ g = 0.70, 95% CI [0.24, 1.16]). These effects were not moderated by the type of PPR, age, gender, skill level, or intervention characteristics. Overall, the meta-analytic results support the benefits of the PPR intervention in practice regardless of the type of routine. Both extensive and stand-alone PPRs are effective in optimising sport performance.
... Figure 1-PRISMA Flow Diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009) In order to draw a comprehensive view of the literature related to corporate sustainability disclosure research, the Scopus database is selected as data depository, from which all documents related to this analysis is extracted. Scopus is considered as one of the prominent database with distinct indexing mechanism ( de Winter, Zadpoor, & Dodou, 2014). The Scopus database has a ("sustainability reporting" OR "voluntary disclosure" OR "integrated reporting" OR "ESG reporting" OR "social disclosure" OR "environmental disclosure" OR "CSR disclosure" OR "disclosure compliance") AND (EXCLUDE (SRCTYPE, "k") OR EXCLUDE (SRCTYPE, "d")) Text Location Article Title Language All ...
Chapter
The aim of this chapter is to take readers beyond the prescriptions of the law to present them with a practical perspective on what happens when organizations try to protect personal data. This is based on the acknowledgement that different sectors of society will have different concerns when it comes to the protection of personal data and privacy. The various conceptions of privacy connect a wide variety of academic disciplines, from anthropology to urban planning. We need to understand that there are many different perspectives on what privacy signifies, and hence, that there are many different considerations regarding what to do to protect it.
Article
Modern systems rely on contributions from many disciplines, requiring a systems perspective when evaluating project outcomes. This investigation provides insight into categorizations of influencers on project outcomes across a range of disciplines and the challenges in categorizing perceived influencers on project outcomes when multiple disciplines are collaborating on a project. This research identifies 390 categorizations from 12 disciplines through systematic review, extracts over 4000 perceived influencers on project outcomes as metadata and analyses the categorizations with a focus on disciplinary similarities. The results of the meta‐analysis indicate that contents of categorizations of perceived influencers on project outcomes are diverse, both within and across disciplines, highlighting the significance of understanding the disciplinary contributions to project outcomes, in order to develop successful systems. Findings indicate that practising systems engineers need to consider the many perspectives that are entangled in the design of complex multidisciplinary systems into a holistic view of the system.
Chapter
What can we learn about research dynamics from ‘citation profiles’, a free product offered by Google Scholar? In this contribution we inspect citation profiles for a number of scientometrics scholars. The selected profiles range from highly prestigious scholars to moderate and lower stature colleagues, and from active and highly productive to inactive or former colleagues. Author citation profiles are compared to a theoretically expected pattern, based on scientometrics theories about publication delay and the immediacy effect in actively growing research fronts. The found profiles show a general increase of author citation levels from the millennium onwards, pointing to raised interest and activity in the field. Contrary to expectations based on the immediacy effect, we find prolonged high citation scores of no-longer-productive authors. Comparison of the author citation levels shows a lasting dominance of the founding fathers of the field. Explaining these patterns, requires both focused and explorative elements in the selective attention of citing authors in a community of researchers. The elements combining in citation dynamics are threefold: (1) fast consumption of novel contributions targeted to audiences in research fronts, explaining immediacy; (2) ritual referencing to basic ideas and methods, as paradigm focal points, explaining prolonged high citation; and (3) explorative searching, explaining (renewed) citation of earlier or remote work.
Article
Full-text available
As participatory mapping evolves encompassing new technologies and incorporating new terminology to describe varying approaches, it is important to examine whether all practitioners of participatory mapping belong to the same community of practice guided by shared principles. The researchers explore the narrative of participatory mapping as a coherent, unified discipline. They do this by assessing the landscape of the literature on participatory mapping practices across two scholarly search platforms – Google Scholar and Web of Science. In each platform, they searched the same terms that are commonly associated with participatory mapping. The researchers’ findings suggest participatory mapping lacks coherence as a unified method. They note a lack of overlap in top cited publications, indicating that what counts as legitimate knowledge regarding participatory mapping and its practice differs depending on the platform. Implications for participatory mapping theory and practice are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Celem przedstawionego badania było opisanie skali obecności przedstawicieli nauk o komunikacji społecznej i mediach w największych międzynarodowych bazach, wyszukiwarkach i serwisach społecznościowych komunikacji naukowej: Academia.edu, Research Gate, Google Scholar, Scopus i Publons (Web of Science). Obecność tę opisano według kategorii takich jak: afiliacja badanych, tytuł/stopień naukowy, płeć, w oparciu o statystyczną analizę danych pozyskanych z ogólnodostępnych źródeł administracji naukowej. Stwierdzono, że największe grupy użytkowników rekrutują się spośród doktorów i doktorów habilitowanych, natomiast afiliacja (w tym przynależność do największych w kraju zespołów uczelnianych) nie jest tu czynnikiem znaczącym.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Adopting Mapping Literature, the purpose of this study is to notice the tendency in defining contextualism through extrinsic aspects neglecting the intrinsic ones generating three theoretical gaps in understanding contextualism, especially in terms of (1) physical/cultural aspects (P/C); (2) traditional vs contemporary architecture (T/C); and (3) place identity (PI). Design/methodology/approach A directed systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to investigate the Web of Science and Google Scholar engines for the related studies, resulting in 66 texts of book chapters, conferences, articles and practitioners’ texts. Using the PRISMA reporting method, the study presented the SLR procedure that narrowed the related studies to 66 texts of book chapters, conferences, articles and practitioners’ texts. Both consensus and debates in understanding the relation between contextualism and (T/C, P/C and PI) were re-visited (see Appendix). Findings According to the findings, the studies tend to address contextualism through either extrinsic or intrinsic values. The undefined balance between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects in understanding and creating contextual architecture seems to be the common reason why the three theoretical gaps exist. Originality/value This paper did not only conduct an SLR investigation on the topic, which is limited in the field, but it also highlighted the need for further and constant discussions despite the previous one to improve the understanding of contextual architecture.
Article
Google Scholar has become an important search platform for students in higher education, and, as such, can be regarded as a competitor to university libraries. Previous research has explored students’ intention to use Google Scholar (GS) and University Digital Libraries (UDLs), but there is a lack of comparative studies that explore students’ preferences between these two platforms. Therefore, this study seeks to explore the search behaviour of a select group of users, international postgraduate students and more specifically compares the factors that influence their use of Google Scholar and University Digital Libraries (UDLs). A questionnaire-based survey, based on the factors in the UTAUT model (unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) was conducted to collect data on acceptance and use of technology of GS and UDL’s respectively. Data was collected from 400 international postgraduate students studying in the United Kingdom. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the contextual influencing factors, whilst structural equation modelling examined the predicted model. The results suggest some differences between the influence of various factors between the UDL dataset and the GS datasets. They suggest that social influence (SI) did not affect behavioural intention (BI) for either data set, but that for the UDL dataset, effort expectancy did not affect BI, whereas for the GS dataset facilitating conditions did not influence BI. The approach taken in this study further facilitates research into the use of search tools to progress beyond ease of use as a main driver and to explore the relationship between internal and external influences of use. Recommendations for further research are suggested and the value of the insights gained for UDLs and their provision and support for all students is discussed.
Article
This study compares search results in Google Scholar (GS), Microsoft Academic (MA), Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) for a set of fifteen business and economics journals, ten of which had impact factors, and five that did not. These results were analyzed to evaluate the relative performance of each database in identifying citations for articles, and to determine whether one source might be preferable to another in different circumstances. Results showed that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic have nearly the same number of average citations, with GS only slightly higher, and each has twice as many as either Web of Science or Scopus. Even so, higher numbers did not automatically lead to an unequivocal recommendation to use the related databases without considering other aspects of each database, such as how citations are reported in each of these sources and the transparency that is provided in the fee-based databases.
Article
In this study we analysed the citation trajectories of 200 tenured Israeli professors, focusing on the differences between the most impactful and the least impactful scholars from various disciplines. Seven typical citation growth patterns have been identified and quantified based on the Web of Science citation trajectories of the scholars. Major slope changes in the scholar's citation trajectories and their relative timing were utilized as indicators of a pattern. Significant differences in citation growth patterns were found between high‐impact and low‐impact professors. This research provides a methodological basis for predicting scholar's career evolution based on their citation growth patterns.
Chapter
The aim of this chapter is to take readers beyond the prescriptions of the law to present them with a practical perspective on what happens when organizations try to protect personal data. This is based on the acknowledgement that different sectors of society will have different concerns when it comes to the protection of personal data and privacy. The various conceptions of privacy connect a wide variety of academic disciplines, from anthropology to urban planning. We need to understand that there are many different perspectives on what privacy signifies, and hence, that there are many different considerations regarding what to do to protect it.
Article
Purpose This study aims to focus on how librarians use and promote Google Scholar (GS) within their library instruction sessions. This study also examines how Google Scholar and the Google Scholar discovery layer, library links, is promoted on library websites. This information is then analyzed across the three date ranges. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a longitudinal analysis of the opinions and uses of Google Scholar by the Ohio consortium of libraries, OhioLINK. This study uses survey data that was collected in 2007, 2014 and 2019 via the OhioLINK Listserv and builds off of co-author’s previous study (2008), which examined the attitudes of OhioLINK librarians as it related to Google Scholar. Findings The results of this research suggested that there were significant changes in use and opinions of Google Scholar between 2007 and 2014 with more normalization of uses and opinions occurring between 2014 and 2019. Research limitations/implications Respondents were not asked for the type of library where they work or to identify their position within their libraries, which necessarily limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the survey responses. In retrospect, limiting the sample to instruction librarians or faculty librarians might have yielded more meaningful results. Additionally, this project did not evaluate the uses and opinions of librarians using GS at the reference desk. By providing this information, it would be easier to truly glean the uses and opinions of librarians with regard to GS. Practical implications This research will assist librarians contextualize how one of the most popular research resources has been used and promoted by those within the field and how those opinions have changed over time. This study will provide context into how Google Scholar became one of the most popular research tools and how attitudes of this unprecedented, and controversial, resource came to be accepted by librarians over the past 15 years. Social implications This study will help librarians better contextualize how other librarians use and promote Google Scholar. Furthermore, it demonstrates how a controversial information research tool became accepted by those in the field over time. Originality/value According to the authors’ knowledge, this research is the only study to provide a longitudinal analysis of the librarian opinions of Google Scholar. It targeted the same audience in identical surveys in a way no other Google Scholar research has done. It builds off of the co-author’s (2008) work, which is a well-cited study regarding librarian attitudes of Google Scholar. This research was done on the 15th year anniversary of Google Scholar.
Chapter
This chapter describes the process of niche formation in the research field of entrepreneurship. It also provides a critical reflection on the usefulness of bibliometric analysis for understanding trends and future direction of research. We analyse the role of grey literature in the development of niche research field, with particular attention to the categories of ecopreneurs, social, green and environmental entrepreneurs.
Article
This research case study describes a faculty leadership development program which was implemented to help achieve institutional change and improve gender equity in a large U.S. university. A human performance technology (HPT) framework was used to design and evaluate this organizational intervention. In total, 28 tenured faculty of which 60% were women participated in this 9‐month program. A logic model and Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation were used to guide and assess this intervention. This mixed method study used surveys to determine knowledge gained and interviews to ascertain behavior change. Findings revealed that participants were able to apply what they learned, and they were satisfied with program, gained knowledge from the program (not at a level determined significant), and promoted to leadership roles and additional responsibility. When the program concluded, women faculty gender and leader identity interference decreased but was still greater than male participants.
Article
Full-text available
In this study we present a method for systematic investigation of the diversity in academic performance and its influence factors among successful scholars. In addition, we examine the potential effect of citation indices on the scholarly performance evaluation. To this end, a quantitative research was conducted on the data of 663 tenured professors, sampled from six faculties in two Israeli universities. The scholars’ productivity and impact rates were collected from the two major citation indices: Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS). A comparison was carried out among the highest impact, lowest impact and average impact scholars in the corpus for each citation index. Significant differences were found between scholars’ performance rates in different impact-level groups in the two indices. The top performing group comprised 44 scholars who belonged to the highest impact sub-corpora according to both citation indices. Linear regression analysis showed that women, despite being a minority in the Israeli academia, outperformed men in terms of scientific impact. Interestingly, there were several differences among the two indices in terms of seniority and performance rates. Our findings provide evidence for the “rich get richer” phenomenon in GS compared to WoS. In WoS mean performance rates stabilize after 15 years of seniority, while in GS performance rates of the scholars constantly grow over time. The study contributes to the evaluation of scholarly success and performance diversity in the academic community. The obtained results provide useful insights on academic success and promotion policies for researchers and institutions.
Article
Various multi-authorship indices have been proposed in the literature, however, there is a continuous discussion in the scientific community which multi-authorship index performs better for the ranking of authors. So far, multi-authorship indices are assessed on very small datasets mostly single authors or the publication record of less than 10 authors. Furthermore, the indices are evaluated on different datasets, making it difficult to assess the true contribution and importance of each multi-authorship index over the others. To identify the individual performance of each multi-authorship index, we employ a comprehensive dataset of Civil Engineering domain, rank the authors according to each index and calculate the correlation between the ranked lists obtained by these indices. It is found that the correlation values vary between very strong correlation and very weak correlation and the negative correlation also exists between some of the indices. Secondly, to evaluate the ranking, the occurrence of award winners is found in the author ranked lists of these indices. The award winners of four most renowned societies of Civil Engineering were considered as benchmark. In top 10% of the ranked list, gf-index remained successful in bringing most of the awardees i.e. around 67% of total awardees. Overall, none of the multi-authorship index remained successful in bringing 100% of award winners in the list of top ranked authors.
Article
Background: Cosmetic surgery represents 20 to 30 percent of total plastic surgical volume. The authors hypothesize that with current capitalization and market share, cosmetic surgery should be proportionally represented in scientific innovation. Methods: All journals that may contain articles relevant to plastic surgery were selected from the 2016 edition of Journal Citation Reports. The authors identified, reviewed, and analyzed the 100 top-cited plastic surgery clinical articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 2017) as a proxy for innovation. Results: The top-100 articles were cited a median of 329.5 times (range, 240 to 1709 times). Sixteen journals were represented, led by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (45 percent) and Annals of Surgery (15 percent). Fifty-six percent were reconstructive, 13 percent were breast, 11 percent were pediatric/craniofacial, 11 percent were cosmetic, and 9 percent were hand/peripheral nerve articles. Only 11 percent of articles represented level of evidence I or II, with the majority (79 percent) of articles being level IV. Sixty-seven percent of publications originated from United States. The 11 cosmetic articles originated from different subspecialties: injectables, fillers, and fat grafting (n = 7); contouring (n = 2); facial cosmetic (n = 1); and general cosmetic (n = 1). Conclusions: Cosmetic innovation is not keeping up with reconstructive innovation; it is unknown why cosmetic surgery is lacking. The authors offer several speculations as to why there is a gap in cosmetic surgical research and, by proxy, innovation.
Article
Full-text available
Most governmental research assessment exercises do not use citation data for the Social Sciences and Humanities as Web of Science or Scopus coverage in these disciplines is considered to be insufficient. We therefore assess to what extent Google Scholar can be used as an alternative source of citation data. In order to provide a credible alternative, Google Scholar needs to be stable over time, display comprehensive coverage, and provide non-biased comparisons across disciplines. This article assesses these conditions through a longitudinal study of 20 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Economics, Medicine and Physics. Our results indicate that Google Scholar displays considerable stability over time. However, coverage for disciplines that have traditionally been poorly represented in Google Scholar (Chemistry and Physics) is increasing rapidly. Google Scholar’s coverage is also comprehensive; all of the 800 most cited publications by our Nobelists can be located in Google Scholar, although in four cases there are some problems with the results. Finally, we argue that Google Scholar might provide a less biased comparison across disciplines than the Web of Science. The use of Google Scholar might therefore redress the traditionally disadvantaged position of the Social Sciences in citation analysis.
Article
Full-text available
Harzing (Scientometrics, 2013) showed that between April 2011 and January 2012, Google Scholar has very significantly expanded its coverage in Chemistry and Physics, with a more modest expansion for Medicine and a natural increase in citations only for Economics. However, we do not yet know whether this expansion of coverage was temporary or permanent, nor whether a further expansion of coverage has occurred. It is these questions we set out to respond in this research note. We use a sample of 20 Nobelists in Chemistry, Economics, Medicine and Physics and track their h-index, g-index and total citations in Google Scholar on a monthly basis. Our data suggest that—after a period of significant expansion for Chemistry and Physics—Google Scholar coverage is now increasing at a stable rate. Google Scholar also appears to provide comprehensive coverage for the four disciplines we studied. The increased stability and coverage might make Google Scholar much more suitable for research evaluation and bibliometric research purposes than it has been in the past.
Article
Full-text available
Traditionally, the most commonly used source of bibliometric data is Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge, in particular the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which provide the yearly Journal Impact Factors (JIF). This paper presents an alternative source of data (Googl Scholar, GS) as well as 3 alternatives to the JIF to assess journal impact (h-index, g-index and the number of citations per paper), Becatise of its broader range of data sources, the use of GS generally results in more comprehensive citation coverage in the area of management and international business. The use of GS particularly benefits academics publishing in sources that are not (well) covered in ISI. Among these are books, conference papers, non-US journals, and in general journals in the field of strategy and international business. The 3 alternative GS-based metrics showed strong correlations with the traditional JIR. As such, they provide academics and universities committed to JIFs with a good alternative for journals that are not ISI-indexed. However, we argue that these metrics provide additional advantages over the JIF and that the free availability of GS allows for a democratization of citation analysis as it provides every academic access to citation data regardless of their institution's financial means.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation‐enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation‐enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings – The study suggests that citation‐enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value – The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation‐enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify some issues regarding citation indexing, analysis and searching. Design/methodology/approach – The paper begins with a discussion on an article in the D‐Lib Magazine and then focuses on deflated citation counts and inflated and phantom citation counts. Findings – The combination of the inflated citation count values dispensed by Google Scholar (GS) with the ignorance and shallowness of some GS enthusiasts can be a real mix for real scholars. Originality/value – The paper offers insight into deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts.
Article
Full-text available
Citation counts were performed across a wide range of disciplines using both the Thomson ISI files and Google Scholar, and shown to lead to essentially the same results, in spite of their different methods for identifying citing sources. This has strong implications for future citation analyses, and the many promotion, tenure and funding decisions based thereon, notably because ISI products are rather costly, while Google Scholar is free.
Article
Full-text available
A 2.91-billion base pair (bp) consensus sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome was generated by the whole- genome shotgun sequencing method. The 14.8-billion bp DNA sequence was generated over 9 months from 27,271,853 high-quality sequence ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: In searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Methods: All the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS. Results: All the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%). Conclusion: The coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews.
Article
Full-text available
This paper discusses Google Scholar as an extension of Fred Kilgour's goal to improve the availability of information. Kilgour was instrumental in the early development of the online library catalog, and he proposed passage retrieval to aid in information seeking. Google Scholar is a direct descendent of these technologies foreseen by Kilgour. Google Scholar holds promise as a means for libraries to expand their reach to new user communities, and to enable libraries to provide quality resources to users during their online search process.
Article
Full-text available
In a previous paper we provided guidelines for scholars on optimizing research articles for academic search engines such as Google Scholar. Feedback in the academic community to these guidelines was diverse. Some were concerned researchers could use our guidelines to manipulate rankings of scientific articles and promote what we call 'academic search engine spam'. To find out whether these concerns are justified, we conducted several tests on Google Scholar. The results show that academic search engine spam is indeed-and with little effort-possible: We increased rankings of academic articles on Google Scholar by manipulating their citation counts; Google Scholar indexed invisible text we added to some articles, making papers appear for keyword searches the articles were not relevant for; Google Scholar indexed some nonsensical articles we randomly created with the paper generator SciGen; and Google Scholar linked to manipulated versions of research papers that contained a Viagra advertisement. At the end of this paper, we discuss whether academic search engine spam could become a serious threat to Web-based academic search engines.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
An increasing number of online information services calculate and report the citedness score of the source documents and provide a link to the group of records of the citing documents. The citedness score depends on the breadth of source coverage, and the ability of the software to identify the cited documents correctly. The citedness score may be a good indicator of the influence of the documents retrieved. Google Scholar gives the most prominence to the citedness score by using it in ranking the search results. Tests have been conducted to compare the individual and aggregate citedness scores of items in the results list of various known-item and subject searches in Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS). This paper presents the findings of the comparison and analysis of the individual and aggregate citation scores calculated by WoS and GS for the papers published in 22 volumes of the Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology (APJAI). The aggregate citedness score was 1,355 for the 675 papers retrieved by WoS, and 595 for 680 papers found in GS. The findings of the analysis and comparison of tests, and the reasons for the significant limitations of Google Scholar in calculating and reporting the citedness scores are presented.
Article
Full-text available
The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.
Article
Citation counts were performed across a wide range of disciplines using both the Thomson ISI files and Google Scholar, and shown to lead to essentially the same results, in spite of their different methods for identifying citing sources. This has strong implications for future citation analyses, and the many promotion, tenure and funding decisions based thereon, notably because ISI products are rather costly, while Google Scholar is free.
Article
Google Scholar, search engine enables online search for scholarly literature from a database of peer-reviewed papers, books, and technical reports. Some of the elements included in a Google Scholar search results entry consists of Citation, Book, PDF, Library Search, and Web Search. Many librarians realized almost as soon as Google released Scholar that they needed to include it as a resource in their guides to their libraries. The search engine recently added in its list the institutional access links to 25 universities and research centres. It is still awaited that how many academic library information professionals will construct a class on how to use Google Scholar.
Article
Citation analysis was traditionally based on data from the ISI Citation indexes. Now with the appearance of Scopus, and with the free citation tool Google Scholar methods and measures are need for comparing these tools. In this paper we propose a set of measures for computing the similarity between rankings induced by ordering the retrieved publications in decreasing order of the number of citations as reported by the specific tools. The applicability of these measures is demonstrated and the results show high similarities between the rankings of the ISI Web of Science and Scopus and lower similarities between Google Scholar and the other tools.
Article
This paper discusses Google Scholar as an extension of Kilgour's goal to improve the availability of information. Kilgour was instrumental in the early development of the online library catalog, and he proposed passage retrieval to aid in information seeking. Google Scholar is a direct descendent of these technologies foreseen by Kilgour. Google Scholar holds promise as a means for libraries to expand their reach to new user communities, and to enable libraries to provide quality resources to users during their online search process.
Article
A protein determination method which involves the binding of Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 to protein is described. The binding of the dye to protein causes a shift in the absorption maximum of the dye from 465 to 595 nm, and it is the increase in absorption at 595 nm which is monitored. This assay is very reproducible and rapid with the dye binding process virtually complete in approximately 2 min with good color stability for 1 hr. There is little or no interference from cations such as sodium or potassium nor from carbohydrates such as sucrose. A small amount of color is developed in the presence of strongly alkaline buffering agents, but the assay may be run accurately by the use of proper buffer controls. The only components found to give excessive interfering color in the assay are relatively large amounts of detergents such as sodium dodecyl sulfate, Triton X-100, and commercial glassware detergents. Interference by small amounts of detergent may be eliminated by the use of proper controls.
Article
This article reports a 2010 empirical study using a 2005 study as a base to compare Google Scholar's coverage of scholarly journals with commercial services. Through random samples of eight databases, the author finds that, as of 2010, Google Scholar covers 98 to 100 percent of scholarly journals from both publicly accessible Web contents and from subscription-based databases that Google Scholar partners with. In 2005 the coverage of the same databases ranged from 30 to 88 percent. The author explores de-duplication of search results by Google Scholar and discusses its impacts on searches and library resources. With the dramatic improvement of Google Scholar, the uniqueness and effectiveness of subscription-based abstracts and indexes have dramatically changed.
Article
How Ike Antkare became one of the most highly cited scientists in the modern world and how you could become like him.
Article
Science researchers at the University of California Santa Cruz were surveyed about their article database use and preferences in order to inform collection budget choices. Web of Science was the single most used database, selected by 41.6%. Statistically there was no difference between PubMed (21.5%) and Google Scholar (18.7%) as the second most popular database. 83% of those surveyed had used Google Scholar and an additional 13% had not used it but would like to try it. Very few databases account for the most use, and subject-specific databases are used less than big multidisciplinary databases (PubMed is the exception). While Google Scholar is favored for its ease of use and speed, those who prefer Web of Science feel more confident about the quality of their results than do those who prefer Google Scholar. When asked to choose between paying for article database access or paying for journal subscriptions, 66% of researchers chose to keep journal subscriptions, while 34% chose to keep article databases.
Article
Research assessment carries important implications both at the individual and institutional levels. This paper examines the research outputs of scholars in business schools and shows how their performance assessment is significantly affected when using data extracted either from the Thomson ISI Web of Science (WoS) or from Google Scholar (GS). The statistical analyses of this paper are based on a large survey data of scholars of Canadian business schools, used jointly with data extracted from the WoS and GS databases. Firstly, the findings of this study reveal that the average performance of B scholars regarding the number of contributions, citations, and the h-index is much higher when performances are assessed using GS rather than WoS. Moreover, the results also show that the scholars who exhibit the highest performances when assessed in reference to articles published in ISI-listed journals also exhibit the highest performances in Google Scholar. Secondly, the absence of association between the strength of ties forged with companies, as well as between the customization of the knowledge transferred to companies and research performances of B scholars such as measured by indicators extracted from WoS and GS, provides some evidence suggesting that mode 1 and 2 knowledge productions might be compatible. Thirdly, the results also indicate that senior B scholars did not differ in a statistically significant manner from their junior colleagues with regard to the proportion of contributions compiled in WoS and GS. However, the results show that assistant professors have a higher proportion of citations in WoS than associate and full professors have. Fourthly, the results of this study suggest that B scholars in accounting tend to publish a smaller proportion of their work in GS than their colleagues in information management, finance and economics. Fifthly, the results of this study show that there is no significant difference between the contributions record of scholars located in English language and French language B schools when their performances are assessed with Google Scholar. However, scholars in English language B schools exhibit higher citation performances and higher h-indices both in WoS and GS. Overall, B scholars might not be confronted by having to choose between two incompatible knowledge production modes, but with the requirement of the evidence-based management approach. As a consequence, the various assessment exercises undertaken by university administrators, government agencies and associations of business schools should complement the data provided in WoS with those provided in GS.
Article
This unique comparative review provides a broad overview of nine different Open Access publishers that use the “author pays” model for supporting their publishing efforts
Article
The impact factor and other bibliometric indicators are currently utilized in most countries to evaluate institutions, scientific research, entire journals, and individual articles. This article addresses some of the most frequently asked questions about the impact factor and its application. The impact factor’s origin and methods of calculating it are examined. Also, discussed are the effects of the impact factor on the following issues: journal and article quality; ISI journal selection criteria; acceptance difficulties; comparison of journals across disciplines, and language of publication. Finally, the article examines the generalization of a journal’s impact factor to the quality of its individual articles, as well as ways to enhance the impact factor of a journal.
Article
Citation analysis is an important tool used to trace scholarly research, measure impact, and justify tenure and funding decisions. Web of Science, which indexes peer-reviewed journal literature, has been the major research database for citation tracking. Changes in scholarly communication, including preprint/postprint servers, technical reports available via the internet, and open access e-journals are developing rapidly, and traditional citation tracking using Web of Science may miss much of this new activity. Two new tools are now available to count citations: Scopus and Google Scholar. This paper presents a case study comparing the citation counts provided by Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles from the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) published in 1985 and in 2000 using a paired t-test to determine statistical significance. Web of Science provided the largest citation counts for the 1985 articles, although this could not be tested statistically. For JASIST articles published in 2000, Google Scholar provided statistically significant higher citation counts than either Web of Science or Scopus, while there was no significant difference between Web of Science and Scopus. The implications for measuring impact in a changing scholarly communication environment are examined.
Article
This article reports a 2010 empirical study using a 2005 study as a base to compare Google Scholar's coverage of scholarly journals with commercial services. Through random samples of eight databases, the author finds that, as of 2010, Google Scholar covers 98 to 100 percent of scholarly journals from both publicly accessible Web contents and from subscription-based databases that Google Scholar partners with. In 2005 the coverage of the same databases ranged from 30 to 88 percent. The author explores de-duplication of search results by Google Scholar and discusses its impacts on searches and library resources. With the dramatic improvement of Google Scholar, the uniqueness and effectiveness of subscription-based abstracts and indexes have dramatically changed.
Article
The introduction of Google Scholar in November 2004 was accompanied by fanfare, skepticism, and numerous questions about the scope and coverage of this database. Nearly one year after its inception, many of these questions remain unanswered. This study compares the contents of 47 different databases with that of Google Scholar. Included in this investigation are tests for Google Scholar publication date and publication language bias, as well as a study of upload frequency. Tests show Google Scholar's current strengths to be coverage of science and medical databases, open access databases, and single publisher databases. Current weaknesses include lack of coverage of social science and humanities databases and an English language bias.
Article
Social cognitive theory provides an agentic conceptual framework within which to analyze the determinants and psychosocial mechanisms through which symbolic communication influences human thought, affect and action. Communications systems operate through two pathways. In the direct pathway, they promote changes by informing, enabling, motivating, and guiding participants. In the socially mediated pathway, media influences link participants to social networks and community settings that provide natural incentives and continued personalized guidance, for desired change. Social cognitive theory analyzes social diffusion of new styles of behavior in terms of the psychosocial factors governing their acquisition and adoption and the social networks through which they spread and are supported. Structural interconnectedness provides potential diffusion paths; sociocognitive factors largely determine what diffuses through those paths.
Article
textlessptextgreatertextlessbrtextgreaterGoogle Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature is analyzed by comparing its contents with those of Compendex, the premier engineering database. Records retrieved from Compendex were searched in Google Scholar, and a decade by decade comparison was done from the 1950s through 2007. The results show that the percentage of records appearing in Google Scholar increased over time, approaching a 90 percent matching rate for materials published after 1990.textless/ptextgreater
Article
There are a growing number of articles on the juncture of Google Scholar and libraries; this article seeks to address the ability of this resource to meet the information needs of students and researchers using the ACRL Information Literacy Standards. Each standard is applied to Google Scholar in this examination, and recommendations for how librarians might respond are offered.
Article
Linking full-text proprietary databases with Google Scholar revealed three significant limitations in terms of precision (no subject heading search), transparency (no listing of information sources), and visibility (Google Scholar details are hard to find). Google Scholar is not a “one stop shopping” search engine that retrieves all relevant data from a library's licensed content. Despite these shortcomings, Google Scholar is a worthwhile search option for students, which may steer them away from Web resources, and towards the library's catalog and databases.
Article
Purpose: This study compares the articles cited in CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar and the h-index ratings provided by Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar. Methods: The publications of 30 College of Nursing faculty at a large urban university were examined. Searches by author name were executed in Scopus, WOS, and POP (Publish or Perish, which searches Google Scholar), and the h-index for each author from each database was recorded. In addition, the citing articles of their published articles were imported into a bibliographic management program. This data was used to determine an aggregated h-index for each author. Results: Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar provided different h-index ratings for authors and each database found unique and duplicate citing references. Conclusions: More than one tool should be used to calculate the h-index for nursing faculty because one tool alone cannot be relied on to provide a thorough assessment of a researcher's impact. If researchers are interested in a comprehensive h-index, they should aggregate the citing references located by WOS and Scopus. Because h-index rankings differ among databases, comparisons between researchers should be done only within a specified database.