Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Citation index'

We apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. We show how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholarâ s research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

Based on our analysis of approaches to citing patents and their use as a factor in the commercial value of the results of creative activity, in our opinion, it is extremely important to determine the valuation of a patent and to forecast its commercial potential. Traditional approaches to determining the valuation of intellectual property are well known, but they do not take into account, in our opinion, an extremely important component that is related to the patent citation index.

Se realizó un estudio bibliométrico para describir la producción científica peruana en cáncer en revistas de visibilidad internacional, y evaluar las redes de colaboración científica. Se incluyó los artículos publicados sobre cáncer hechos en Perú en el periodo 2000 a 2011 en revistas indizadas en SCOPUS o Science Citation Index Expanded. Se identificaron 358 artículos, evidenciándose un incremento en la producción de cuatro artículos en el 2000 a 57 en el 2011. Los cánceres más estudiados fueron los de cuello uterino (77 publicaciones); mama (53), y estómago (37). El Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN) fue la institución más productiva (121 artículos) y con mayor número de colaboraciones (180 instituciones distintas). Se identificaron 52 ensayos clínicos, 29 con al menos un autor del INEN. En conclusión, la investigación en cáncer en Perú se está incrementando, el INEN es la institución más productiva, con importante participación en ensayos clínicos.
A bibliometric study was carried out to describe the scientific production on cancer written by peruvians and published in international health journals, as well as to assess the scientific collaboration networks. It included articles on cancer written in Peru between the years 2000 and 2011 and published in health journals indexed in SCOPUS or Science Citation Index Expanded. In the 358 articles identified, an increase in the production was seen, from 4 articles in 2000 to 57 in 2011.The most studied types were cervical cancer (77 publications); breast cancer (53), and gastric cancer (37). The National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases (INEN) was the most productive institution (121 articles) and had the highest number of collaborations (180 different institutions). 52 clinical trials were identified, 29 of which had at least one author from INEN. We can conclude that, cancer research is increasing in Peru, the INEN being the most productive institution, with an important participation in clinical trials.

Наведено найпопулярніші наукометричні показники, які демонструють деякі грані продуктивності роботи науковця. Описано різні способи розрахування індексу Хірша та продемонстровано один із способів на конкретному прикладі. Відмічено переваги і недоліки наукометричних показників при оцінці наукової діяльності ученого.
It is presented the popular scientometric performance indicators that show some facets productivity scientist. It is describes various methods for calculating the Hirsch index and demonstrated one way of a specific example. It is indicated the advantages and disadvantages of the scientometric performance indicators in the evaluation of the scientific activity of the scientist.

Cette thèse est une analyse scientométrique d’un corpus de 542 textes sur la didactique de la traduction publiés entre 1966 et 2009. L’objectif est de voir à travers une analyse des citations quels auteurs ont influencé ce domaine et quels sont les titres, les langues, les supports et les domaines de textes les plus cités. La plupart des auteurs les plus cités sont des traductologues non didacticiens. L’approche fonctionnaliste et l’approche linguistique de la traduction sont les courants de pensée les plus présents parmi ces auteurs dont l’influence est surtout théorique et méthodologique (méthodes d’enseignement). Les textes didactiques reflètent le poids des institutions européennes puisque la plupart des auteurs cités se trouvent sur ce continent. Les auteurs français sont cités presque uniquement par des auteurs du monde francophone alors que les germanophones les plus cités ont de l’écho auprès d’auteurs d’horizons variés. La plupart des écrits les plus cités sont des monographies de recherche traductologique publiées dans les années quatre-vingt dix par des enseignants et praticiens de la traduction. Les écrits les plus citées entre 1966 et 2005 sont des textes de recherche traductologique non didactiques alors que la période 2006-2009 est marquée par les textes didactiques sur la traduction non littéraire. Les articles d’ouvrages collectifs et de revues sont moins cités que les monographies et les auteurs citent davantage de textes anciens que récents. La majorité des textes cités sont écrits en anglais. Par ailleurs, les auteurs du corpus sont très influencés par les écrits traductologiques non didactiques et peu par des textes d’autres domaines
This thesis is a scientometric study on 542 texts about translation didactics published between 1966 and 2009. The purpose is to investigate what authors have influenced this field and what texts, languages, types of media and disciplines are the most cited. Most cited authors are translation scholars who are not specialized in translation didactics. The functionalist and linguistic approach of translation are the most cited trends among the most cited authors. These authors are mostly cited for their theories and their teaching methods. Citing texts show the influence of European institutions, since most cited authors are affiliated in European countries. French authors are practically only cited by authors affiliated in French-speaking countries and the most influential German-speaking authors are cited by authors from various countries. The majority of most cited texts are monographs on translation studies published in the nineties by teachers and translators. The most cited texts between 1966 and 2005 deal with translation studies research (non-didactic texts) and the most cited texts between 2006 and 2009 are didactic texts on non-literary translation. Papers in collective books and journals are less cited than monographs. Authors also cite more ‘old’ texts than ‘recent’ texts (released more or less than five years after the publication of the citing text). Most cited texts are written in English and texts on translation studies (non-didactic texts) are a lot more cited than texts from other disciplines

Prior research on text collections of religious documents has demonstrated that viable recommender systems in the area are lacking, if not non-existent, for some datasets. For example, both www.LDS.org and scriptures.byu.edu are websites designed for religious use. Although they provide users with the ability to search for documents based on keywords, they do not provide the ability to discover documents based on similarity. Consequently, these systems would greatly benefit from a recommender system. This work provides a framework for evaluating recommender systems and is flexible enough for use with either website. Such a framework would identify the best recommender system that provides users another way to explore and discover documents related to their current interests, given a starting document. The framework created for this thesis, RelRec, is attractive because it compares two different recommender systems. Documents are considered relevant if they are among the nearest neighbors, where "nearest" is defined by a particular system's similarity formula. We use RelRec to compare output of two particular recommender systems on our selected data collection. RelRec shows that LDA recommeder outperforms the TF-IDF recommender in terms of coverage, making it preferable for LDS-based document collections.

My research focusses on the automatic extraction of canonical references from publications in Classics. Such references are the standard way of citing classical texts and are found in great numbers throughout monographs, journal articles and commentaries. In chapters 1 and 2 I argue for the importance of canonical citations and for the need to capture them automatically. Their importance and function is to signal text passages that are studied and discussed, often in relation to one another as can be seen in parallel passages found in modern commentaries. Scholars in the field have long been exploiting this kind of information by manually creating indexes of cited passages, the so-called indices locorum. However, the challenge we now face is find new ways of indexing and retrieving information contained in the growing volume of digital archives and libraries. Chapters 3 and 4 look at how this problem can be tackled by translating the extraction of canonical citations into a computationally solvable problem. The approach I developed consists of treating the extraction of such citations as a problem of named entity extraction. This problem can be solved with some degree of accuracy by applying and adapting methods of Natural Language Processing. In this part of the dissertation I discuss the implementation of this approach as a working prototype and an evaluation of its performance. Once canonical references have been extracted from texts, the web of relations between documents that they create can be represented as a network. This network can then be searched, manipulated, visualised and analysed in various ways. In chapter 5 I focus specifically on how this network can be leveraged to search through bodies of secondary literature. Finally in chapter 6 I discuss how my work opens up new research perspectives in terms of visualisation, analysis and the application of such automatically extracted citation networks.

W pracy dokonano analizy bibliometrycznej 1810 czasopism z 56 dyscyplin z nauk społecznych indeksowanych w bazie danych Social Sciences Citation Index. Do badań zastosowano metodykę I. Marszakowej- Szajkiewicz umożliwiającej ocenę czasopism naukowych niezależnie od dziedziny. Analiza objęła lata 1994-1998. Na podstawie uzyskanych wyników dokonano oceny prenumeraty czasopism zagranicznych kupowanych przez biblioteki polskie w latach 1994-1999. Szczególną uwagę zwrócono na 13 uniwersytetów - największych ośrodków skupiających badania z nauk społecznych oraz jedną uczelnię niepaństwową, ze względu na duży zbiór czasopism objętych prenumeratą. Wyniki badań, w formie 115 tabel zostały zebrane w Tomie 2 pracy, jako Załączniki przedstawione są w formie tradycyjnej oraz na nośniku CDROM. Struktura pracy zawiera Wstęp, sześć rozdziałów, Zakończenie oraz bibliografię.

Обґрунтовано необхідність представлення результатів сучасних науковців у віртуальному науковому середовищі, що характеризує у тому числі їх ІКТ-компетентність. Зазначено про важливість кількісних наукових показників для оцінки продуктивності науковців і доцільність реєстрації їх у світових наукометричних базах. Описано процес створення профілю у науковій пошуковій системі Google Академія.
It is substantiated the necessity of presenting the results of work of modern scientific researchers as also a feature of their ICT competence. It is indicated the importance of using quantitative indicators to evaluate the scientific performance of researchers, and the expedience of registration in scientometric databases around the world. It is showed the process of the creating a profile in the scientific search system Google Scholar.

Submitted by Fabio Sampaio Rosas null (fabio@dracena.unesp.br) on 2018-04-16T00:30:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 rosas_fs_dr_mar.pdf: 3029154 bytes, checksum: 519abec6e5d3357a4a244b3f0c4ec51e (MD5)
Approved for entry into archive by Satie Tagara (satie@marilia.unesp.br) on 2018-04-16T14:08:15Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 rosas_fs_dr_mar.pdf: 3029154 bytes, checksum: 519abec6e5d3357a4a244b3f0c4ec51e (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-16T14:08:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 rosas_fs_dr_mar.pdf: 3029154 bytes, checksum: 519abec6e5d3357a4a244b3f0c4ec51e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-21
Não recebi financiamento
Os estudos que mensuram de forma ampla e objetiva a atuação e impacto dos programas de pós-graduação oferecem subsídios para o aprimoramento das diretrizes político-científicas. Neste contexto, esta pesquisa tem por objetivo propor o uso de indicadores adicionais (média de citações e Índice h) como parte da avaliação dos programas de pós-graduação brasileiros, que atualmente são baseados somente em indicadores de produtividade, a fim de identificar o impacto científico e a visibilidade dos programas, tomando como universo de aplicação os programas de pós-graduação da área de Zootecnia, com conceitos de 4 a 7, com mestrado e doutorado. Para cada programa de Zooctenia com mestrado e doutorado, analisam-se os artigos completos, publicados em periódicos Qualis A1 e A2 no triênio 2010-2012. Utilizam-se como fonte de dados, os cadernos de indicadores da CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Para cada artigo presente na produção científica analisada, identificou-se o número de citações recebidas, registradas na base de dados SCOPUS. A partir destes, calcularam-se a média de citações e o Índice h de cada programa. Para verificar a distribuição e dispersão dos índices resultantes para os indicadores propostos, utilizaram-se análises descritivas, gráficos de caixas (Boxplot) e análise de cluster. Os resultados obtidos revelam que não há diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os indicadores analisados relativos aos programas, pelo agrupamento dos programas segundo o conceito atribuído pela Capes na avaliação de 2013, referente ao triênio 2010-2012. Como conclusão, evidenciou-se que a inclusão de indicadores relativos ao impacto da produção científica dos programas de pós-graduação pode contribuir para a melhoria da compreensão do desempenho científico dos programas e reconhecimento da relevância dos seus conhecimentos produzidos e subsidiar na avaliação e classificação dos programas realizada pela CAPES, contribuindo de forma qualitativa na avaliação de programas de pós-graduação brasileiros em áreas similiares à de Zootecnia.
The studies, which quantify in a large and objective way the acting and impact of post-grade programs, offer tools to enhance of political-scientific guidelines. That way, this work aims to propose the use of two indicators (average number of citations and h index) as a part of the evaluation of the Brazilian post-grade programs, which nowadays are only evaluated by productivity indicators, in order to identify the scientific impact and visibility of the programs, taking as subject post-grade programs in Animal Science area, with CAPES concept between 4 and 7, with master and doctor degree. For each program in Animal Science area with master and doctor degree, it was analyzed the complete articles published in scientific journals, which were classified with Qualis indicator A1 and A2 between 2010 and 2012. The notebooks of CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) indicators were used as data source. For each article analyzed, the number of citations that were registered on SCOPUS was counted. Then, the average number of citations and h index of each program were calculated. Descriptive analyzes, box plots and clustering were used in order to verify the distribution and dispersion of the resulting indices for the proposed indicators. As conclusion, it was displayed that the indicators regarding to impact of the scientific production of post-grade programs can contribute to the enhance of the comprehension about the scientific performance and recognizing of the knowledge´s relevance produced, as well as supports on evaluation and classification of the programs, which CAPES carries out, contributing in qualitative way on evaluation of Brazilian post-grade programs in Animal Science similar areas.

Orientadora: Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio
Banca: Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira
Banca: Fábio Mascarenhas Silva
Banca: Mário de Beni Arrigoni
Banca: Leandro Innocentini Lopes de Faria
Resumo: Os estudos que mensuram de forma ampla e objetiva a atuação e impacto dos programas de pós-graduação oferecem subsídios para o aprimoramento das diretrizes político-científicas. Neste contexto, esta pesquisa tem por objetivo propor o uso de indicadores adicionais (média de citações e Índice h) como parte da avaliação dos programas de pós-graduação brasileiros, que atualmente são baseados somente em indicadores de produtividade, a fim de identificar o impacto científico e a visibilidade dos programas, tomando como universo de aplicação os programas de pós-graduação da área de Zootecnia, com conceitos de 4 a 7, com mestrado e doutorado. Para cada programa de Zooctenia com mestrado e doutorado, analisam-se os artigos completos, publicados em periódicos Qualis A1 e A2 no triênio 2010-2012. Utilizam-se como fonte de dados, os cadernos de indicadores da CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Para cada artigo presente na produção científica analisada, identificou-se o número de citações recebidas, registradas na base de dados SCOPUS. A partir destes, calcularam-se a média de citações e o Índice h de cada programa. Para verificar a distribuição e dispersão dos índices resultantes para os indicadores propostos, utilizaram-se análises descritivas, gráficos de caixas (Boxplot) e análise de cluster. Os resultados obtidos revelam que não há diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os indicadores analisados relativos aos programas, pelo agrupamento dos p... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo)
Abstract: The studies, which quantify in a large and objective way the acting and impact of post-grade programs, offer tools to enhance of political-scientific guidelines. That way, this work aims to propose the use of two indicators (average number of citations and h index) as a part of the evaluation of the Brazilian post-grade programs, which nowadays are only evaluated by productivity indicators, in order to identify the scientific impact and visibility of the programs, taking as subject post-grade programs in Animal Science area, with CAPES concept between 4 and 7, with master and doctor degree. For each program in Animal Science area with master and doctor degree, it was analyzed the complete articles published in scientific journals, which were classified with Qualis indicator A1 and A2 between 2010 and 2012. The notebooks of CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) indicators were used as data source. For each article analyzed, the number of citations that were registered on SCOPUS was counted. Then, the average number of citations and h index of each program were calculated. Descriptive analyzes, box plots and clustering were used in order to verify the distribution and dispersion of the resulting indices for the proposed indicators. As conclusion, it was displayed that the indicators regarding to impact of the scientific production of post-grade programs can contribute to the enhance of the comprehension about the scientific performance and recogniz... (Complete abstract click electronic access below)
Doutor

CIDS (Citation Impact Discerning Self-Citation) is a web tool that uses Google Scholar as publication database, to calculate citation impact. Others databases also exist, such as Scopus and Web of Science, but their lower coverage is inferior than Google Scholar, so CIDS uses the latter. Many metrics were proposed to measure citation impact, such as h-index and g-index. These metrics take in account a set of publications, usually belonging to just one author, and, in case of h-index and g-index, outputs a single discrete number. This number is a quantitative measure of citation impact. To automate multiple metrics calculus, several tools were developed, such as HPP, Microsoft Academic and CIDS. CIDS differentiates itself from the others, by discerning self-citations. This means that, all metrics mentioned before are calculated with and without discerning self-citations. Self-citation occurs when at least one of the publication’s authors is also author of the cited publication. Previous CIDS, albeit faster than its predecessor and making possible publication filtration, did not allow a user to have more than one citation impact result, that is, if the user had two groups of publications and wanted citation impact calculated for each one, it was not possible. It also does not allow filtering citations of publications, group management (add, edit and remove members of groups) nor it works on Internet Explorer, a popular web browser. My work objective was a new CIDS version that overcomes some of its problems described above and with more functionalities than its predecessor. These new functionalities consisted in assigning an private area to the user for his queries, user having more control over his final results, help the user in repetitive tasks by detecting patterns in usage, fix CIDS to run in all browsers (cross-browser compatibility). Previous CIDS’s team functionality would also be renew, helping the the user performing group analysis. Even though some of the functionalities mentioned - cross-browser compatibility and the help on repetitive tasks.- were not implemented, the rest of the functionality was and, in my opinion, made CIDS a better tool to be used.

The two Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index 2004 and the Social Science Citation Index 2004 were combined in order to analyze and map journals and specialties at the edges and in the overlap between the two databases. For journals which belong to the overlap (e.g., Scientometrics), the merger mainly enriches our insight into the structure which can be obtained from the two databases separately; but in the case of scientific journals which are more marginal in either database, the combination can provide a new perspective on the position and function of these journals (e.g., Environment and Planning Bâ Planning and Design). The combined database additionally enables us to map citation environments in terms of the various specialties comprehensively. Using the vector-space model, visualizations are provided for specialties that are parts of the overlap (information science, science & technology studies). On the basis of the resulting visualizations, â betweennessâ â a measure from social network analysisâ is suggested as an indicator for measuring the interdisciplinarity of journals. This paper is forthcoming in Scientometrics.

Tese de mestrado em Engenharia Informática, apresentada à Universidade de Lisboa, através da Faculdade de Ciências, 2012
CIDS (Citation Impact Discerning Self-Citations) é uma ferramenta web que usa o Google Scholar como repositório dados de publicações, para calcular o impacto de citações das mesmas. Existem outros repositórios de dados que poderiam ter sido usados, como por exemplo, Scopus e Web of Science, mas uma vez que têm uma cobertura de publicações inferior à do Google Scholar, o CIDS usa este último. Muitas métricas foram propostas para medir o impacto das citações, tais como o h-index e o g-index. Essas métricas têm em conta um conjunto de publicações que normalmente pertencem a um autor e, no caso do h-index e g-index, produzem um número discreto. Este número é uma medida quantitativa do impacto das citações feitas por um autor. Para automatizar o cálculo das métricas, várias ferramentas foram desenvolvidas, tais como a HPP, o Microsoft Academic e o CIDS. O CIDS diferencia-se dos outros por discernir auto-citações. De acordo com o HPP, uma auto-citação é uma citação em que pelo menos um dos autores de uma publicação é também autor da publicação citada, que é precisamente a definição utilizada pelo CIDS. A versão do CIDS (3.0) que me foi entregue, embora fosse mais rápida que a versão antecessora e com a possibilidade de filtrar publicações, não permite que um utilizador tenha em simultâneo mais de um resultado de impacto de citações, isto é, se o utilizador tem dois grupos de publicações e gostava de ver o resultado do impacto de citações calculado para cada um desses conjuntos, tal não é possível. Essa versão também não permite a filtragem de citações de publicações, não tem um mecanismo de cálculo do impacto de citações de grupos usável, e também não funciona no navegador Internet Explorer, um dos browsers mais populares na internet. O meu objetivo com este trabalho foi criar uma nova versão do CIDS (3.1) que superasse alguns dos problemas acima descritos e ainda ter mais algumas funcionalidades. As funcionalidades projectadas são as seguintes: a atribuição de uma área privada para o utilizador para que possa consultar o progresso das suas interrogaões de pesquisa do Google Scholar, o utilizador com mais controle sobre seus resultados finais, ajudar o utilizador em tarefas repetitivas através da detecção de padrões do seu uso, e corrigir o CIDS para que possa ser executado em todos os navegadores de internet (também apelidado de compatibilidade cross-browser). Uma funcionalidade já existente no CIDS anterior (3.0), a análise bibliométrica de um grupo de autores, também seria renovada e estendida, ficando mais automatizada e permitindo ao utilizador poder ser notificado quando os seus resultados estivessem prontos para visualização. Após a realização do trabalho, algumas das funcionalidades propostas não chegaram a ser desenvolvidas: compatibilidade cross-browser (embora tenha havida esforço nesse sentido) e a ajuda em tarefas repetitivas, devido a restrições no tempo de desenvolvimento. Ainda assim, a implementação das restantes funcionalidade propostas tornou, na minha opinião, o CIDS numa ferramenta mais capaz e fácil de usar. Através de um esforço extra, o CIDS é agora uma ferramenta que consegue saber quando é que o Google Scholar o bloqueia e como reagir a esse evento (ligando/desligando o acesso, conforme a resposta obtida). Também permite filtrar citações, bem como alterar o seu tipo (de citação própria para não-própria e vice-versa), o que permite ao autor corrigir dados erróneos que possam advir do repositório de publicações do Google Scholar. E, para além de permitir ao utilizador poder ter várias queries de pesquisa em simultâneo, devido a uma reestruturação efectuada, a análise de grupo de autores, que outrora necessita de três passos incómodos para ser realizada, agora necessita apenas de um, e ainda notifica o utilizador quando é que essa análise de grupo termina.
CIDS (Citation Impact Discerning Self-Citation) is a web tool that uses Google Scholar as a publication database, to calculate citation impact. Others databases also exist, such as Scopus and Web of Science, but their coverage is lower than the coverage of Google Scholar, so CIDS uses the latter. Many metrics were proposed to measure citation impact, such as h-index and g-index. These metrics take into account a set of publications, usually belonging to one author, and, in case of h-index and g-index, output a single discrete number. This number is a quantitative measure of citation impact. To automate multiple metrics calculus, several tools were developed, such as HPP, Microsoft Academic and CIDS. CIDS differentiates itself from the others, by discerning self-citations. According to HPP, self-citation occurs when at least one of the publication’s authors is also author of the cited publication. The version of CIDS that was delivered to me, albeit faster than its predecessor and with a manual publication filtering process available, did not allow a user to have more than one citation impact result, that is, if the user had two groups of publications and wanted citation to be impact calculated for each one, that was not possible. It also does not allow filtering citations of publications, does not allow several queries calculus simultaneously for one user nor it works on Internet Explorer, a popular web browser. My work objective was to create a new version of CIDS that overcome the issues previously mentioned and with more functionalities. These new functionalities consisted in assigning a private area to the user for his queries, user having more control over his final results, help the user in repetitive tasks by detecting patterns in his usage and fix CIDS so that it can execute on all major browsers (cross-browser compatibility). Previous CIDS’s team functionality would also be enhanced to help the user performing group analysis faster. Even though some of the functionalities stated before - cross-browser compatibility and the help on repetitive tasks - were not implemented, the remaining ones were and, in my opinion, contributed to a better tool, perhaps a reference in citation impact tools.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming).
Forthcoming in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Abstract: The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analysed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level and the institutional level (i.e., university journals versus journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index. The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones. However, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

M.Phil
Citing is the process by which scholars give recognition to research used by another academic researcher. Citation resources are tools used by academic scholars for keeping track of who did what research and the impact of the research within the discipline. Citation analysis is therefore an attempt to measure the impact and contribution of a study to the body of knowledge and research. Citation tracking and citation analysis is facilitated by making use of information resources which specialize in citations and tools for conducting citation analysis. The citation resource by The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science (WOS), was traditionally the citation tool of choice of academics for more than 40 years. The arrival in 2004 of Scopus, a fee-based citation resource, and Google Scholar (GS), a citation resource available for free and accessible via the Web, presented WOS with competition. The prolific growth of the citation resources created new opportunities for academics in citation tracking and citation analysis. The question of which citation resource to use in the process of tracking citations and conducting citation analysis posed a challenge to librarians and information professionals at academic institutions. It became essential to establish which citation resource was not only most relevant to use for which subject discipline, but which was the most cost-effective with the advent of shrinking library budgets. Therefore the need arose for citation resources to be compared with the aim of establishing whether the newcomers Scopus and GS are substitutes for or complementary to the traditional WOS. The objectives of this study included comparing WOS, Scopus and GS in order to determine whether evaluation criteria existed for citation resources, to define scholarly environmental sciences journals within a South African context, to determine which citation resource presented the most comprehensive citation coverage of the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals, to determine whether GS could be considered a substitute for the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus, and to determine how the content of the exported data for the journal sample population compared in terms of content completeness and quality. The research study consisted of a detailed literature review, followed by an empirical component using a comparative research design and the technique of purposive non-probability sampling in order to define the sample population for the study. The South African scholarly environmental sciences journals internationally accredited during the period 2004-2008 were chosen as the sample target population. The study consisted of a pilot study and three measuring instruments that were compiled based on the literature review. The results of the macro-level evaluation established that Scopus surpasses both WOS and GS. On the other hand, the micro-level evaluation concluded that WOS surpasses Scopus and GS. The content verification process conducted determined that Scopus and WOS both surpass GS. These findings were presented at the 12th Annual World Wide Web Applications conference in September 2010. The study was able to establish that GS is not a substitute for WOS and/or Scopus for the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals. In addition, it was concluded that GS can be used as a supplementary citation resource to the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus. It was further determined that the citation resource Scopus can be considered a substitute for WOS, which was traditionally the citation resource of choice of academic researchers.

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.

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

碩士
淡江大學
資訊與圖書館學系碩士班
93
Citedness score is a widely accepted metric for the quality of scholarly literatures, therefore, the forming calculation and corresponsive consequence of citation counts becomes of importance for academic researchers, especially for the research assessment. However, the distinction of citedness score exists in heterogeneous information systems resulted from considerations for system construction and development, such as purpose, procedure and policy of data processing, and that would bring various meanings and impacts for citedness score. This paper aims to examine the distinctive factors and results on calculation of citedness score of scholarly literatures between SCIE and Scopus by adoption of comparison as research methodology. In this empirical study, we selected 372 research papers from research grant publications of the College of Engineering at Tamkang University, and 251 engineering journals published in Taiwan and the Mainland China as research subject to test the citation counts from SCIE and Scopus simultaneously. As a consequence, one may generalize that four factors heavily impacts on the different citedness scores between SCIE and Scopus and factors are: coverage of collected data, integrity of cited references, quality of citation record and citation pointer between citing and cited references. Based on our results in this study, one may draw conclusions in the following: 1.In addition to the amount of scholarly literatures determined by citation information system producers, citation counts are also varied resulted from the selection policy, especially concerning about comprehensiveness of journal coverage and type of scholarly literatures, such as conference proceedings and so on. 2.It has proven to be economical effectiveness for the use of core journals, according to the citation counts both of SCIE and Scopus. 3.Record fields and style of cited references collected by information systems has a far–reaching influence on calculation of citation counts. 4.The distinctive recognition on granularity of references for scholarly literatures between SCIE and Scopus also deeply impact the calculation of citation counts. 5.The policy of quality assurance on data verification and correction is another influential factor resulting in various calculations of citation counts. 6.Errors stemmed from misquotation of original scholarly literatures get the accuracy of citation counts into disputable. 7.The errors from production of information system are much worse than those stemmed from misquotation of original scholarly literatures, such as omission of cited references, record linkage errors and so on. Based on the conclusions above, five suggestions for improving citedness score of information systems are raised as follows: 1.To expand the data coverage of journals into the other scholarly literatures, such as conference papers. 2.To enhance quality assurance on citations. 3.To record the fullness of paper title and author rather than in an abbreviation ways, in order to facilitate the identification of cited and citing references. 4.To build up a consistent policy for inclusion of cited references. 5.To adopt record identifier mechanism for reference pointer function, instead of reference-matching one.

Supervising students at a distance presents numerous social, mental, professional, and individual challenges on the student- supervisor relationship, and on the substance, progress, and conveyance. From the literature review, several tools and technologies are developed to improve academic quality; however, most of these tools and technologies focus on journal articles’ quality rather than student/supervisor relationships. This study aims to develop an academic rating index (ARI) that will show a supervisor’s review by students and provide an interactive forum. The application will serve as an academic supervision teaching-level index that provides an aggregated measure of supervisors’ past and current impact. Thus, the ARI aims to aggregate all academic supervisor ratings and the number of ratings that they received in the entire academic career to complement their citation index. The study will use quantitative coding and programming tools to ensure a good quality system in the development phase. The application and findings of the study contribute to academic service quality.
Operations Management
M. Tech. (Information Technology)

The thesis focuses on the evaluation of Research and Development in the Czech Republic. The introductory part of thesis highlights the recency of the topic and describes the quantitative and qualitative methods of assessing outlets of science. The second part of the thesis discusses in detail the evaluation of science in the Czech Republic; the legislative framework and the evaluation of Research and Development are mentioned. The third chapter shows the evaluation of institutional Research and Development and uses the 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague as an example. The core of the thesis is the fourth chapter with an analysis of selected primary scientometric data. The final part summarizes the entire topic and highlights some problem areas [Author's abstract].