To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Google Scholar Citations.
Journal articles on the topic 'Google Scholar Citations'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Google Scholar Citations.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Ebrahim, Nader Ale, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Mahmoud Danaee, Marjan Mohammadjafari, Azam Zavvari, Masoud Shakiba, and Masoomeh Shahbazi-Moghadam. "Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers." Modern Applied Science 8, no. 5 (August 5, 2014): 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v8n5p63.
Full textAbstract:
This study uses citation analysis from two citation tracking databases, Google Scholar (GS) and ISI Web of Science, in order to test the correlation between them and examine the effect of the number of paper versions on citations. The data were retrieved from the Essential Science Indicators and Google Scholar for 101 highly cited papers from Malaysia in the field of engineering. An equation for estimating the citation in ISI based on Google scholar is offered. The results show a significant and positive relationship between both citation in Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science with the number of versions. This relationship is higher between versions and ISI citations (r = 0.395, p<0.01) than between versions and Google Scholar citations (r = 0.315, p<0.01). Free access to data provided by Google Scholar and the correlation to get ISI citation which is costly, allow more transparency in tenure reviews, funding agency and other science policy, to count citations and analyze scholars’ performance more precisely.
2
Loan, Fayaz Ahmad, and Shueb Sheikh. "Is Google scholar really scholarly?" Library Hi Tech News 35, no. 3 (May 8, 2018): 7–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/lhtn-11-2017-0078.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This paper aims to identify the scholarly nature of the results retrieved by the Google Scholar on the five major global problems, i.e. global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour. Design/methodology/approach The five terms (global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour) were searched into the Google Scholar database, and the first 50 retrieved hits were manually analysed to record the relevant bibliographic details. The scholarship of the results was measured by quality indices like h-index, Altmetrics and Journal Impact Factor. The Scopus – the world’s biggest abstract and citation database – was used to identify the h-index of the prolific authors, citations of articles and impact factor of journals. Findings The study reveals that Google Scholar retrieves a good number of publications on the selected global problems from reputed publishers such as Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, Cambridge University Press, Blackwell and Sage and published from well-developed countries such as the USA, UK and Switzerland. Google Scholar mostly retrieves articles and research papers from qualitative journals having a good impact factor such as Nature, Science, The Lancet, American Journal of Public Health, The Economic Journal, Social Science and Medicine and Annals of Tourism Research. These articles and books are contributed by the reputed authors having high h-index. The journal articles and books retrieved have also a good number of citations, although such results are limited. The results prove that Google Scholar is scholarly in nature to a great extent. Research limitations/implications The findings are limited to Google Scholar only and cannot be generalized for the rest of the search tools or databases. Further, the study included only five major global problems in the study, and thus, results cannot be applicable to other areas of knowledge. Practical implications The study is a checklist to know the retrieval performance of Google Scholar in terms of quality of content. Originality/value It is the first study of its kind that takes into account the nature of content on major global problems retrieved by the Google Scholar. It is also the first study that used bibliometric analysis to evaluate the quality of results retrieved.
3
Ali, Muhammad Yousuf, and Joanna Richardson. "Google Scholar Citation metrics of Pakistani LIS scholars: an overview." Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 68, no. 4/5 (July 1, 2019): 392–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-03-2018-0025.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the use of Google Scholar Citations’ profiling platform by library and information science (LIS) scholars in Pakistan. Design/methodology/approach Purposive sampling was used to collect Google Scholar Citations profiles between 15 November 2017 and 31 January 2018. Resultant data were analyzed in SPSS Version 21. Findings In terms of demographical data, the study results were consistent with previous studies of Pakistani LIS scholars. There were strong correlations between Google Scholar Citations metrics (publications, citations, h-index and i10-index). The results indicate that, compared with a 2011 survey of LIS academics in Pakistan, the overall uptake for this cohort remains relatively low. This cohort is not maximizing the opportunity provided by this specific online profiling system to increase research visibility. Research limitations/implications As the study was limited to those Pakistani LIS scholars who already had a profile on ResearchGate, it would be useful to broaden the research to encompass all Pakistani LIS scholars. Practical implications The role of the librarian as an adviser in scholarly communication and impact can be extended to support scholars in the adoption of new online platforms for scholarly communication and visibility. Originality/value There have been no published research studies on Google Scholar Citations metrics in the context of Pakistani LIS scholars as a whole.
4
Chapman, Karen, and Alexander E. Ellinger. "An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management." International Journal of Logistics Management 30, no. 4 (November 11, 2019): 1039–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-04-2019-0110.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from. Design/methodology/approach In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies. Findings The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed. Practical implications The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued. Originality/value Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.
5
Kousha, Kayvan, and Mike Thelwall. "Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no. 7 (2007): 1055–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20584.
Full text
6
Allo, Karmila Pare, and La Ode Ismail. "Google Scholar Metrics, Pengaruhnya pada Jurnal Ilmiah." Khizanah al-Hikmah : Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, dan Kearsipan 8, no. 1 (June 27, 2020): 91. http://dx.doi.org/10.24252/kah.v8i1a10.
Full textAbstract:
Google scholar merupakan mesin pencari yang membantu akademisi untuk menelusuri karya tulis ilmiah, seperti artikel jurnal yang telah diterbitkan di mana saja. Selain itu, media ini juga dapat digunakan oleh akademisi atau jurnal ilmiah untuk mengukur metrik perkembangan sitasinya dengan membuat profil pada Google Scholar Profile. Penelitian ini akan menggambarkan; 1) metrik sitasi Khizanah al-Hikmah : Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, dan Kearsipan (KAH-JIPIK), 2) jenis dokumen yang paling banyak menyitir, 3) artikel yang paling sering disitir, dan 4) manfaat yang dirasakan oleh KAH-JIPIK pada Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). Data penelitian diperoleh dari hasil wawancara dengan jurnal manajer dan GSM dari KAH-JIPIK. Ms. Excel digunakan untuk mengalkulasi dan memberikan grafik sitasi. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terjadi penurunan sitiran yang diperoleh dari tahun ke tahun, jenis dokumen yang menyitir artikel Khizanah Al-Hikmah adalah jurnal, skripsi, tesis, prosiding, makalah, buku dan sumber lainnya, artikel yang paling banyak disitir adalah yang ditulis oleh Machsun Rifauddin dengan jumlah sitiran sebanyak 30. Penelitian dapat berimplikasi pada strategi untuk memaksimalkan lagi agar para pembaca tertarik untuk menyitir jurnal ini. Jurnal ini juga perlu memaksimalkan kualitas artikel yang diterimanya, khususnya yang berkaitan dengan perkembangan bidang yang berkaitan.ABSTRACTGoogle Scholar helps academicians to explore scholarly papers, such as academic articles that have been published everywhere. In addition, this tool can also be used by authors or journals to measure their citations trend by creating their own Google Scholar Profile. This research will describe; 1) Google Scholars Metrics of Khizanah al-Hikmah: Journal of Library, Information, and Archival Science (KAH-JIPIK), 2) the types of documents that have cited the most, 3) the most cited articles, and 4) the benefit of Google Scholar Metrics. The research data were obtained from interviews with its journal manager and KAH-JIPIK’s Google Scholar profile. Ms. Excel was used to help to calculate and provide citation charts. The results of this study indicate that there was a decreasing trend in citations from year to year, the types of documents citing Khizanah Al-Hikmah articles were journals, theses, proceedings, papers, books, and other sources, and the most cited article was written by Machsun Rifauddin with a total of 30 citations. This study might have strong recommendations for the journal to maximize the promotion so the readers are interested in citing the published articles. The journal also needs to maximize the quality of submitted articles, particularly related to the development of the fields.
7
Doğan, Güleda, İpek Şencan, and Yaşar Tonta. "Does dirty data affect google scholar citations?" Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 1 (2016): 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098.
Full text
8
Serenko, Alexander, and John Dumay. "Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect." Journal of Knowledge Management 19, no. 6 (October 12, 2015): 1335–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jkm-02-2015-0086.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this study was to discover growing, stable and declining knowledge management (KM) research trends. Design/methodology/approach – Citations to 100 KM citation classics as identified by Serenko and Dumay (2015) were collected and analyzed for growing, stable and declining research trends. Findings – This research has two findings that were not theoretically expected. First, a majority of KM citation classics exhibit a bimodal citation distribution peak. Second, there are a growing number of citations for all research topics. These unexpected findings warranted further theoretical elaboration and empirical investigation. The analysis of erroneous citations and a five-year citation trend (2009 – 2013) reveals that the continuously growing volume of citations may result from what the authors call the Google Scholar Effect. Research limitations/implications – The results from this study open up two significant research opportunities. First, more research is needed to understand the impact Google Scholar is having on domains beyond KM. Second, more comprehensive research on the impact of erroneous citations is required because these have the most potential for damaging academic discourse and reputation. Practical implications – Researchers need to be aware of how technology is changing their profession and their citation behavior because of the pressure from the contemporary “publish or perish” environment, which prevents research from being state-of-the-art. Similarly, KM reviewers and editors need to be more aware of the pressure and prevalence of mis-citations and take action to raise awareness and to prevent mis-citations. Originality/value – This study is important from a scientometric research perspective as part of a growing research field using Google Scholar to measure the impact and power it has in influencing what gets cited and by whom.
9
Saberi, Mohammad Karim, and Faezeh Ekhtiyari. "Usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of LIS highly cited papers: an altmetrics study." Performance Measurement and Metrics 20, no. 1 (February 4, 2019): 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/pmm-10-2018-0025.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of highly cited papers of Library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach This study is quantitative research that was conducted using scientometrics and altmetrics indicators. The research sample consists of LIS classic papers. The papers contain highly cited papers of LIS that are introduced by Google Scholar. The research data have been gathered from Google Scholar, Scopus and Plum Analytics Categories. The data analysis has been done by Excel and SPSS applications. Findings The data indicate that among the highly cited articles of LIS, the highest score regarding the usage, captures, mentions and social media and the most abundance of citations belong to “Citation advantage of open access articles” and “Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems.” Based on the results of Spearman statistical tests, there is a positive significant correlation between Google Scholar Citations and all studied indicators. However, only the correlation between Google Scholar Citations with capture metrics (p-value = 0.047) and citation metrics (p-value = 0.0001) was statistically significant. Originality/value Altmetrics indicators can be used as complement traditional indicators of Scientometrics to study the impact of papers. Therefore, the Altmetrics knowledge of LIS researchers and experts and practicing new studies in this field will be very important.
10
Jacimovic, Jelena, Ruzica Petrovic, and Slavoljub Zivkovic. "A citation analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar." Serbian Dental Journal 57, no. 4 (2010): 201–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/sgs1004201j.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction. For a long time, The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases, available online through the Web of Science (WoS), had an unique position among bibliographic databases. The emergence of new citation databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar (GS), call in question the dominance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and citation studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS could be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal. Material and Methods. The data regarding SDJ citation was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access? database. Results. One hundred and fifty-eight cited papers from SDJ and 249 received citations were found in the three analyzed databases. 74% of cited articles were found in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. The greatest number of citations (189) was derived from GS, while only 15% of the citations, were found in all three databases. There was a significant difference in the percentage of unique citations found in the databases. 58% originated from GS, while Scopus and WoS gave 6% and 4% unique citations, respectively. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18% only. In case of WoS and GS the overlap was 17%. Most of the SDJ citations came from original scientific articles. Conclusion. WoS, Scopus and GS produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for SDJ articles. None of the examined databases can provide a comprehensive picture and it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.
11
Jacsó, Péter. "Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late?" Online Information Review 36, no. 1 (February 17, 2012): 126–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521211209581.
Full textAbstract:
PurposeSeven years after the release of Google Scholar in 2004, it was enhanced by a new module, the Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker (GSACT), currently a small subset of the complete Google Scholar (GS) database. The aim of this paper is to focus on this enhancement.Design/methodology/approachThe paper discusses the Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker, its features, potential benefits and problems.FindingsGSACT allows registered users to create and edit their scientific profiles and some bibliometric indicators, such as the h‐index, total citation counts, and the i10 index. These metrics are provided for the entire academic career of authors and for the most recent five‐year period. The new module also offers some long overdue essential options, such as sorting result lists of the documents by their publication year, title, and the citations receivedOriginality/valueThe paper shows that, at present, GSACT may be too little, too late. However, with an extension of the current clean‐up project it could possibly become a really scholarly resource in the long run.
12
Pitney, William A., and Todd A. Gilson. "Using Google Scholar Citations to Support the Impact of Scholarly Work." Athletic Training Education Journal 7, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 38–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/070138.
Full text
13
Mueen Ahmed, KK. "Assessing citations with Google Scholar: A new feature." Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics 3, no. 1 (2012): 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-500x.92502.
Full text
14
Śleszyński, Przemysław. "Citations and impact of the Polish geographical centers by Google Scholar." Przegląd Geograficzny 85, no. 4 (2013): 599–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/przg.2013.4.5.
Full text
15
Thornley, Clare V., Shane J. McLoughlin, Andrea C. Johnson, and Alan F. Smeaton. "A bibliometric study of Video Retrieval Evaluation Benchmarking (TRECVid): A methodological analysis." Journal of Information Science 37, no. 6 (November 4, 2011): 577–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551511420032.
Full textAbstract:
This paper provides a discussion and analysis of methodological issues encountered during a scholarly impact and bibliometric study within the field of Computer Science (TRECVid Text Retrieval and Evaluation Conference, Video Retrieval Evaluation). The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection and analysis of the methods used to provide useful information and guidance for those who may wish to undertake similar studies, and is of particular relevance for the academic disciplines which have publication and citation norms that may not perform well using traditional tools. Scopus and Google Scholar are discussed and a detailed comparison of the effects of different search methods and cleaning methods within and between these tools for subject and author analysis is provided. The additional database capabilities and usefulness of ‘Scopus More’ in addition to ‘Scopus General’ are discussed and evaluated. Scopus paper coverage is found to favourably compare with Google Scholar but Scholar consistently has superior performance at finding citations to those papers. These additional citations significantly increase the citation totals and also change the relative ranking of papers. Publish or Perish, a software wrapper for Google Scholar, is also examined and its limitations and some possible solutions are described. Data cleaning methods, including duplicate checks, expert domain checking of bibliographic data, and content checking of retrieved papers, are compared and their relative effects on paper and citation count discussed. Google Scholar and Scopus are also compared as tools for collecting bibliographic data for visualizations of developing trends and, owing to the comparative ease of collecting abstracts, Scopus is found far more effective.
16
Sivak, Allison. "Study in Grey and White: Measuring the Impact of the 8Rs Canadian Library Human Resources Study." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 4, no. 2 (June 14, 2009): 133. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b8zg89.
Full textAbstract:
Objective – To use the 8Rs Canadian Library Human Resources Study (the 8Rs Study) as a test case to develop a model for assessing research impact in LIS.
Methods – Three different methods of citation analysis which take into account the changing environment of scholarly communications. These include a ‚manual‛ method of locating citations to the 8Rs Study through a major LIS database, an enhanced-citation tool Google Scholar, and a general Google search to locate Study references in non-scholarly documents
Results – The majority of references (82%) were found using Google or Google Scholar; the remainder were located via LISA. Each method had strengths and limitations.
Conclusion - In-depth citation analysis provides a promising method of understanding the reach of published research. This investigation’s findings suggest the need for improvements in LIS citation tools, as well as digital archiving practices to improve the accessibility of references for measuring research impact. The findings also suggest the merit of researchers and practitioners defining levels of research impact, which will assist researchers in the dissemination of their work.
17
Kloda, Lorie Andrea. "Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2, no. 3 (September 5, 2007): 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b8cs37.
Full textAbstract:
Objective – To determine whether three competing citation tracking services result in differing citation counts for a known set of articles, and to assess the extent of any differences.
Design – Citation analysis, observational study.
Setting – Three citation tracking databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science.
Subjects – Citations from eleven journals each from the disciplines of oncology and condensed matter physics for the years 1993 and 2003.
Methods – The researchers selected eleven journals each from the list of journals from Journal Citation Reports 2004 for the categories “Oncology” and “Condensed Matter Physics” using a systematic sampling technique to ensure journals with varying impact factors were included. All references from these 22 journals were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003 by searching three databases: Web of Science, INSPEC, and PubMed. Only research articles were included for the purpose of the study. From these, a stratified random sample was created to proportionally represent the content of each journal (oncology 1993: 234 references, 2003: 259 references; condensed matter physics 1993: 358 references, 2003: 364 references). In November of 2005, citations counts were obtained for all articles from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Due to the small sample size and skewed distribution of data, non-parametric tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between sets.
Main results – For 1993, mean citation counts were highest in Web of Science for both oncology (mean = 45.3, SD = 77.4) and condensed matter physics (mean = 22.5, SD = 32.5). For 2003, mean citation counts were higher in Scopus for oncology (mean = 8.9, SD = 12.0), and in Web of Science for condensed matter physics (mean = 3.0, SD = 4.0). There was not enough data for the set of citations from Scopus for condensed matter physics for 1993 and it was therefore excluded from analysis. A Friedman test to measure for differences between all remaining groups suggested a significant difference existed, and so pairwise post-hoc comparisons were performed. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranked tests demonstrated significant differences “in citation counts between all pairs (p < 0.001) except between Google Scholar and Scopus for CM physics 2003 (p = 0.119).”
The study also looked at the number of unique references from each database, as well as the proportion of overlap for the 2003 citations. In the area of oncology, there was found to be 31% overlap between databases, with Google Scholar including the most unique references (13%), followed by Scopus (12%) and Web of Science (7%). For condensed matter physics, the overlap was lower at 21% and the largest number of unique references was found in Web of Science (21%), with Google Scholar next largest (17%) and Scopus the least (9%). Citing references from Google Scholar were found to originate from not only journals, but online archives, academic repositories, government and non-government white papers and reports, commercial organizations, as well as other sources.
Conclusion – The study does not confirm the authors’ hypothesis that differing scholarly coverage would result in different citation counts from the three databases. While there were significant differences in mean citation rates between all pairs of databases except for Google Scholar and Scopus in condensed matter physics for 2003, no one database performed better overall. Different databases performed better for different subjects, as well as for different years, especially Scopus, which only includes references starting in 1996. The results of this study suggest that the best citation database will depend on the years being searched as well as the subject area. For a complete picture of citation behaviour, the authors suggest all three be used.
18
Thelwall, Mike, and Kayvan Kousha. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?" Scientometrics 112, no. 2 (April 26, 2017): 1125–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4.
Full text
19
Mingers, John, and Eren Kaymaz. "Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method." Journal of Data and Information Science 4, no. 2 (June 7, 2019): 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0007.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Purpose To design and test a method for normalizing book citations in Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach A hybrid citing-side, cited-side normalization method was developed and this was tested on a sample of 285 research monographs. The results were analyzed and conclusions drawn. Findings The method was technically feasible but required extensive manual intervention because of the poor quality of the Google Scholar data. Research limitations The sample of books was limited and also all were from one discipline —business and management. Also, the method has only been tested on Google Scholar, it would be useful to test it on Web of Science or Scopus. Practical limitations Google Scholar is a poor source of data although it does cover a much wider range citation sources that other databases. Originality/value This is the first method that has been developed specifically for normalizing books which have so far not been able to be normalized.
20
Tsigaris, Panagiotis, and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva. "Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing." Performance Measurement and Metrics 22, no. 1 (November 20, 2020): 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015.
Full textAbstract:
PurposeIn 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.
21
Pitney, William, and Todd Gilson. "Education Technology: Using Google Scholar Citations to Support the Impact of Scholarly Work." Athletic Training Education Journal 7, no. 1 (April 11, 2012): 38–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5608/070138.
Full text
22
Peress, Michael. "Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar." PS: Political Science & Politics 52, no. 2 (November 2, 2018): 312–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096518001610.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis article develops a number of measures of the research productivity of political science departments using data collected from Google Scholar. Departments are ranked in terms of citations to articles published by faculty, citations to articles recently published by faculty, impact factors of journals in which faculty published, and number of top publications in which faculty published. Results are presented in aggregate terms and on a per-faculty basis.
23
Hayon, Solomon, Ian Stormont, Meagan M. Dunne, and Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui. "Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic oncology literature." Journal of Clinical Oncology 35, no. 6_suppl (February 20, 2017): 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.6_suppl.70.
Full textAbstract:
70 Background: Social media use has dramatically increased in academic medicine with over 70% of journals now using twitter accounts. This calls into question if there is a measurable association between academic impact and Twitter use. We sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of academic citations a urologic oncology publication receives. Methods: 210 papers from 7 prominent urology journals were examined 18 months after publication from December 2014-January 2015. Articles were evaluated with 2 citation based “bibliometrics” (Scopus, Google Scholar) and 1 social media based metric (Altmetric). Altmetric software allowed for individual tweets regarding an article to be examined. Scores and Twitter mentions for oncology and non-oncology publications were compared using ANOVA and contingency analysis. Results: 79 articles were oncology related while 131 pertained to other topics. The mean number of Twitter mentions for oncology articles was 4.1, compared to 2.4 for non-oncology articles (p=0.004). Articles with at least one twitter mention had 2.0 fold more Scopus citations (p<0.01), 2.1 fold more Google Scholar citations (p<0.01), and 27.8 fold higher Altmetric scores (p<0.001). Oncology authors tended to be more active on Twitter, with 13.9% of oncology authors self-tweeting their own articles versus 5.3% of non-oncology authors (p=0.04). Authors self-tweeting oncology articles was associated with an increased number of citations, with a 10.3 and 7.9 mean citation increase in Google Scholar and Scopus scores (p=0.04 and p=0.01) compared to non-self-tweeted oncology articles. (See table.) Conclusions: Social media appears to be more prominent in the urologic oncology community. The number of citations a urologic oncology publication receives is associated with the number of mentions it has on Twitter. Authors self-tweeting articles may be a factor that increases paper visibility and academic impact. [Table: see text]
24
Ланде, Д. В. "Створення термінологічної моделі предметної області шляхом зондування Google Scholar Citations." Правова інформатика, no. 2 (46) (2015): 3–8.
Find full text
25
Césars, Jasmine, Magline Alexis, and Evens Emmanuel. "Use Of Altmetric And Bibliometric Indicators To Measure Scientific Productivity In The Fields Of Life And Earth Sciences: Case Study From Haiti." European Scientific Journal, ESJ 17, no. 21 (June 30, 2021): 316. http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2021.v17n21p316.
Full textAbstract:
The objective of this study was to carry out, based on certain bibliometric and altimetric indicators, a summary assessment of the scientific productivity of Quisqueya University’s researchers in 3 specific fields: agronomy, the environment and health. An experimental framework was designed and implemented based on the quantitative information available on the academic social network ResearchGate, and on SCOPUS and Google scholar, out of a total of 12,731 citations enumerated for Quisqueya University as of December 31, 2020, 19% were for the environment, 19.3% were for health, 59.9% for agronomy and 1.8% for other sectors. All the sectors recorded a significant increase for the RG score altmetric indicator and for the two bibliometric indicators: number of citations and H-index. The data collected were analyzed using XLSTAT and R software. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied for each of the indicators. Pearson's rank correlation was used to calculate the correlations between the altmetric indicator (RG-Score) from ResearchGate and the bibliometric indicators (citation and H-index) from Google Scholar and Scopus. A significant positive correlation of α = 0.918 was observed between the number of citations on ResearchGate and on Google Scholar. a result in the same direction (α = 0.991) is also observed between the number of citations on ResearchGate and on Scopus. These correlations allow us to conclude that the work of these researchers was cited in publications published in journals referenced in the Web of Science by a rate exceeding 90%.
26
Card, David, and Stefano DellaVigna. "Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics." Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 144–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.144.
Full textAbstract:
How has publishing in top economics journals changed since 1970? Using a data set that combines information on all articles published in the top-five journals from 1970 to 2012 with their Google Scholar citations, we identify nine key trends. First, annual submissions to the top-five journals nearly doubled from 1990 to 2012. Second, the total number of articles published in these journals actually declined from 400 per year in the late 1970s to 300 per year most recently. As a result, the acceptance rate has fallen from 15 percent to 6 percent, with potential implications for the career progression of young scholars. Third, one journal, the American Economic Review, now accounts for 40 percent of top-five publications, up from 25 percent in the 1970s. Fourth, recently published papers are on average three times longer than they were in the 1970s, contributing to the relative shortage of journal space. Fifth, the number of authors per paper has increased from 1.3 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2012, partly offsetting the fall in the number of articles per year. Sixth, citations for top-five publications are high: among papers published in the late 1990s, the median number of Google Scholar citations is 200. Seventh, the ranking of journals by citations has remained relatively stable, with the notable exception of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which climbed from fourth place to first place over the past three decades. Eighth, citation counts are significantly higher for longer papers and those written by more coauthors. Ninth, although the fraction of articles from different fields published in the top five has remained relatively stable, there are important cohort trends in the citations received by papers from different fields, with rising citations to more recent papers in Development and International, and declining citations to recent papers in Econometrics and Theory. (JEL A14)
27
Sankar, M. "Mapping of Research in Agricultural Scientist’s Citation Analysis in Google Scholar, Scopus and Publons." Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology 9, no. 2 (May 5, 2019): 28–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.51983/ajist-2019.9.2.282.
Full textAbstract:
An innovative idea developed by the researchers should reach the end user groups. The output of any researcher can be judged in terms of patents or his publications in the respective fields. Quality and impact of research work can be based on the citation and h index. Nowadays, there are several parameters considered for evaluating the performance of the research. Citation and h index are the quality parameters used for rating the originality and use of research. They are more useful for accessing the potentials of research as well as for providing a platform for collaborative projects at national / International levels. This paper presents the comparative analysis of citation and h index for identified researcher through three popular databases viz., Google Scholar, Scopus, and Publons. Among the three databases, Google Scholar showed a higher number of citations of the selected author due to data collected from unauthenticated documents as well as well established research databases.
28
Martell, Charles. "A Citation Analysis of College & Research Libraries Comparing Yahoo, Google, Google Scholar, and ISI Web of Knowledge with Implications for Promotion and Tenure." College & Research Libraries 70, no. 5 (September 1, 2009): 460–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/0700460.
Full textAbstract:
Two hundred and seventeen articles in College & Research Libraries from 2000 to 2006 were searched by title on Yahoo, Google, Google Scholar, and ISI Web of Knowledge to determine the frequency with which articles in the journal are cited, the effectiveness of the four search services, and the relevance and applicability of findings to promotion and tenure. Yahoo, Google, and ISI Web of Knowledge averaged between 2.8 and 3.5 citations per title for the period covered and Google Scholar averaged 6.4. The value of citations counts in the promotion and tenure process and the importance of publications in the evaluation of librarians are discussed.
29
Orduña-Malea, Enrique, Juan M. Ayllón, Alberto Martín-Martín, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar. "The lost academic home: institutional affiliation links in Google Scholar Citations." Online Information Review 41, no. 6 (October 9, 2017): 762–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2016-0302.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Google Scholar Citations (GSC) provides an institutional affiliation link which groups together authors who belong to the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this feature is able to identify and normalize all the institutions entered by the authors, and whether it is able to assign all researchers to their own institution correctly. Design/methodology/approach Systematic queries to GSC’s internal search box were performed under two different forms (institution name and institutional e-mail web domain) in September 2015. The whole Spanish academic system (82 institutions) was used as a test. Additionally, specific searches to companies (Google) and world-class universities were performed to identify and classify potential errors in the functioning of the feature. Findings Although the affiliation tool works well for most institutions, it is unable to detect all existing institutions in the database, and it is not always able to create a unique standardized entry for each institution. Additionally, it also fails to group all the authors who belong to the same institution. A wide variety of errors have been identified and classified. Research limitations/implications Even though the analyzed sample is good enough to empirically answer the research questions initially proposed, a more comprehensive study should be performed to calibrate the real volume of the errors. Practical implications The discovered affiliation link errors prevent institutions from being able to access the profiles of all their respective authors using the institutions lists offered by GSC. Additionally, it introduces a shortcoming in the navigation features of Google Scholar which may impair web user experience. Social implications Some institutions (mainly universities) are under-represented in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. This fact might jeopardize the visibility of institutions as well as the use of this feature in bibliometric or webometric analyses. Originality/value This work proves inconsistencies in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. A whole national university system is systematically analyzed and several queries have been used to reveal errors in its functioning. The completeness of the errors identified and the empirical data examined are the most exhaustive to date regarding this topic. Finally, some recommendations about how to correctly fill in the affiliation data (both for authors and institutions) and how to improve this feature are provided as well.
30
Chan, Jesse Y., Kam C. Chan, Jamie Y. Tong, and Feida Zhang. "Using Google Scholar citations to rank accounting programs: a global perspective." Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 47, no. 1 (December 30, 2014): 29–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11156-014-0493-x.
Full text
31
Muehlmann, Brigitte W., Victoria Chiu, and Qi Liu. "Emerging Technologies Research in Accounting: JETA's First Decade." Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 12, no. 1 (August 1, 2015): 17–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51245.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT The Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting (JETA), an American Accounting Association journal, reached its ten-year milestone in 2013. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric and comparative analysis of the 66 main research articles and citations of the contributions, which were published from 2004 to 2013. The analysis of the characteristics of the articles comprises the research methodologies and accounting areas as used in the Brigham Young University Accounting Research Rankings, novel classifications based on an expansion of the Brown and Vasarhelyi (1994) accounting research taxonomy, and the AACSB A7 data terms, artificial intelligence, contributing authors, and institutions. The citation analysis reports and compares scholarly and patent results. Some major differences between the citations in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus came to light.
32
Giri, Rabishankar. "Influence of selected factors in journals’ citations." Aslib Journal of Information Management 71, no. 1 (January 21, 2019): 90–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ajim-07-2017-0170.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of selected factors in journal citations. Various factors can affect citations distribution of journals. Among them, skewness of citations distribution, author self-citation, journal self-citation and recitations (RCs) have been studied. Design/methodology/approach The present study based on 16 systematically selected journals indexed in Scopus under the subject category “Library and Information Science.” The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in the selected journals in the year 2011. The temporal citation window from 2011 to 2014 was taken for analysis. Tools like, Scopus author ID, ORCID and author profiles from Google Scholar were used to minimize the error due to homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names. Findings It is found that citations distribution in majority of the journals under the study is highly skewed and more likely to follow log-normal distribution. The nature of authorship in papers was found to have positive effect on citation counts. Self-citing data show that higher ranked journals have rather less direct impact on total citation counts than their lower counterpart. RCs are also found to be more in top-tier journals. Though the influence of self-citations and RCs were relatively less at individual level on total citations of journals but combined, they can play a dominant role and can affect total citation counts of journals at significant level. Research limitations/implications The present study is based on Scopus database only. Therefore, citation data can be affected by the inherent limitation of Scopus. Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample and tracing citations from an array of citation indexes, such as Web of Science, Google citations, Indian Citation Index, etc. Originality/value This paper reinforces that the citations received by journals can be affected by the factors selected in this study. Therefore, the study provides better understanding of the role of these selected factors in journal citations.
33
Mbaidjol, Zacharia, Jens Rothenberger, and Rajesh Chetany. "A Scientometric Analysis of the 50 Most Cited Articles for Reconstruction of the Lower Extremity." Surgery Research and Practice 2019 (January 28, 2019): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3068028.
Full textAbstract:
Background. Lower extremity reconstruction has always been a challenge. Some of the published articles had a major impact on the field but are often not considered as classics because they have fewer citations. We therefore conducted a scientometric analysis of the most cited articles with a focus solely on the lower limb. Methods. A search was conducted on Medline, the Web of Science database, Google Scholar, and Scopus identifying articles relevant to reconstructive surgery of the lower limb. All journals were included with no time frames. Articles relating solely to orthopedics or vascular reconstruction were excluded. The number of citations obtained were then plotted and compared between the different search engines. The mean citation number was calculated by taking into consideration the total number of years since the article’s first year of publication. Articles were then ranked and classified according to their authors, their years of publications, and their countries. They were furthermore categorized and analyzed. Results. Highly cited articles were easily retrieved with Google Scholar, mostly published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 37) and were mainly authored by American Medical Centers (n = 22). Fifty-four percent (54%) of these classic articles discussed the design of new flaps or were anatomical studies. Conclusions. We were not able to find a correlation between the year of citation and the number of citations. The citation pattern of a paper cannot be predicted, but a majority of highly cited article allowed the design of new reconstructive techniques.
34
Kousha, Kayvan, and Mike Thelwall. "Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines." Scientometrics 74, no. 2 (November 28, 2007): 273–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x.
Full text
35
Lamba, Manika, Neha Kashyap, and Madhusudhan Margam. "Research evaluation of computer science publications using Altmetrics: a cohort study of Indian Central Universities." Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 70, no. 4/5 (January 29, 2021): 459–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-07-2020-0097.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Social interaction applications and reference tools are actively used by researchers to share and manage their research publications. Thus, this paper aims to determine the scholarly impact of selected Indian central universities. Design/methodology/approach This study analyzed 669 articles having both Dimensions citations and Altmetric attention scores published by 35 Indian central universities for 4 subfields of Computer Science using Altmetric Explorer. This paper determined each university’s contribution in the studied subfields of Computer Science and the correlation among Altmetric attention score (aggregated and individual), Dimensions citation, and Mendeley readership counts for all 669 articles and stratified percentile sets of top 25%, and top 50% of the overall number of articles. Findings The findings showed that Jawaharlal Nehru University had the maximum Altmetric attention score, Banaras Hindu University received the maximum Dimensions citation, and University of Hyderabad (UoH) received the maximum number of Mendeley readers. Each central university was examined individually and then ranked based on their median values of Dimensions citations and Altmetric attention scores. Further, Twitter had the maximum Altmetric coverage, followed by Google+, Patent and Facebook for the retrieved articles. A significant strong positive correlation was observed between the Dimensions citation and Mendeley readership counts for all the three categories. Research limitations/implications Both Altmetric attention scores and Dimensions citations can help funding agencies to assess and evaluate the research productivity of these universities, thus, making important decisions such as increasing, decreasing, re-distributing their funds. Originality/value The current body of research is focused mostly on relationships between citations and individual Altmetric indicators predominantly. For most of the studies, the citations were retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science or Google Scholar database. It was observed that by far, no study had examined the relationship between citations retrieved from Dimensions database, Altmetrics scores (both aggregated and individual) and Mendeley readership counts.
36
Coelho Paraguassu, Eber. "BJIHS continues to increase its H index on Google Scholar." Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences 2, no. 6 (June 27, 2020): 01–03. http://dx.doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2020v2n6p01-03.
Full textAbstract:
Google Scholar is a Google search tool that allows you to search academic papers, school literature, university newspapers and various articles. Launched in November 2004, it started offering searches in Portuguese on January 10, 2006 [1].
Currently, the Google Scholar H index has become a CAPES evaluation criterion for classifying and ranking journals on the sucupira platform, through the Qualis note [2].
The BJIHS in just one year achieved the feat of having the H 6 index. This means that the newspaper has 6 articles with at least 6 citations within the Google Scholar database.
We are very grateful to the authors of these articles who help to boost the BJIHS metrics and make the newspaper each edition more relevant within the scientific community.
37
Rovira, Codina, Guerrero-Solé, and Lopezosa. "Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus." Future Internet 11, no. 9 (September 19, 2019): 202. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi11090202.
Full textAbstract:
Search engine optimization (SEO) constitutes the set of methods designed to increase the visibility of, and the number of visits to, a web page by means of its ranking on the search engine results pages. Recently, SEO has also been applied to academic databases and search engines, in a trend that is in constant growth. This new approach, known as academic SEO (ASEO), has generated a field of study with considerable future growth potential due to the impact of open science. The study reported here forms part of this new field of analysis. The ranking of results is a key aspect in any information system since it determines the way in which these results are presented to the user. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the relevance ranking algorithms employed by various academic platforms to identify the importance of citations received in their algorithms. Specifically, we analyze two search engines and two bibliographic databases: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic, on the one hand, and Web of Science and Scopus, on the other. A reverse engineering methodology is employed based on the statistical analysis of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The results indicate that the ranking algorithms used by Google Scholar and Microsoft are the two that are most heavily influenced by citations received. Indeed, citation counts are clearly the main SEO factor in these academic search engines. An unexpected finding is that, at certain points in time, Web of Science (WoS) used citations received as a key ranking factor, despite the fact that WoS support documents claim this factor does not intervene.
38
Kavitha, N., and M. Chandrashekara. "Scientometric Portrait of Professor K. Byrappa: Scientist of High Repute." Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology 10, no. 2 (November 5, 2020): 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.51983/ajist-2020.10.2.308.
Full textAbstract:
The present study attempted to explore and analyze various attributes of research publications of Prof.K.Byrappa, a renowned Indian academician and researcher. The data used in the study have covered from K. Byrappa’s early date of publication to 13th January 2020, indexed in Google Scholar. A total number of 378 articles have been retrieved from Google Scholar for the said period. His h-index is 31 and received 7774 citations for his scholarly research work. In this study, an attempt has been made to highlight the profile and publications of Prof. K. Byrappa as a role model for future researchers and academicians.
39
Kalcioglu, M. T., Y. Ileri, O. I. Ozdamar, U. Yilmaz, and M. Tekin. "Evaluation of the academic productivity of the top 100 worldwide physicians in the field of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery using the Google Scholar h-index as the bibliometrics ranking system." Journal of Laryngology & Otology 132, no. 12 (December 2018): 1097–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022215118002190.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractObjectiveThe top 100 physicians of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery worldwide were investigated using the Google Scholar h-index.MethodAlthough there are various bibliometrics ranking systems that present the academic quantity and quality of scientists’ published articles, the h-index is the most popular and widely accepted. In this study, Google Scholar was used to search all the keywords involving all the subspecialties of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery, with the aim of identifying as many physicians as possible. Obtaining the Google Scholar h-index and citations is not possible for scientists who do not have Google Scholar accounts. Thus, only those with Google Scholar accounts were included.ResultsThe average h-index of all 100 physicians enrolled in the study was 37.83, with a range of 25–81.ConclusionThe current study details the academic impact of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery physicians worldwide based on the Google Scholar h-index.
40
Lande, Dmitrii. "Construction domain model of information security by probing Google Scholar Citations service." Collection "Information technology and security" 3, no. 1 (June 30, 2015): 4–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.20535/2411-1031.2015.3.1.57678.
Full text
41
Basu, Aparna, Deepika Malhotra, Taniya Seth, and Pranab Kumar Muhuri. "Global Distribution of Google Scholar Citations: A Size-independent Institution-based Analysis." Journal of Scientometric Research 8, no. 2 (September 3, 2019): 72–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5530/jscires.8.2.12.
Full text
42
Ortega, José Luis, and Isidro F. Aguillo. "Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, no. 6 (February 26, 2014): 1149–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23036.
Full text
43
Rovira, Cristòfol, Frederic Guerrero-Solé, and Lluís Codina. "Received citations as a main SEO factor of Google Scholar results ranking." El Profesional de la Información 27, no. 3 (June 18, 2018): 559. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.09.
Full text
44
Sanchez, Thomas W. "Urban Planning Academics: Tweets and Citations." Urban Planning 6, no. 1 (February 24, 2021): 146–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3720.
Full textAbstract:
This article discusses the relationship between Twitter usage and scholarly citations by urban planning academics in the U.S. and Canada. Social media and academic publications may be considered separate activities by some, but over the past decade there has been a convergence of the two. Social media and scholarship can be complementary not only when social media is used to communicate about new publications, but also to gather research ideas and build research networks. The analysis presented here explores this relationship for urban planning faculty using data for faculty who had active Twitter accounts between March 2007 and April 2019. Measures of Twitter activity were combined with Google Scholar citation data for 322 faculty with Twitter accounts. As expected, the results highlight that there are different patterns of Twitter activity between junior faculty and senior faculty both in terms of proportions of each rank using Twitter as well as activity levels on the social media platform. The results also suggest that Twitter activity does not have a statistically significant relationship with overall scholarly productivity as measured by citation levels.
45
Knudson, Duane. "Bibliometrics of ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review." ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review 28, no. 82 (December 31, 2020): 27–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.52383/itfcoaching.v28i82.20.
Full textAbstract:
This study documented the citation metrics of articles published by the ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review (ITFCSSR) and indexed in Google Scholar (GS). A systematic searching of GS returned 209 unique ITFCSSR indexed articles published between 1993 and 2019 with 1139 citations. ITFCSSR articles had relatively low citation rates that confirmed previous bibliometric research on the gradual development of tennis knowledge compared to faster moving biomedical fields. ITFCSSR articles may make unique contributions to knowledge development in tennis science, particularly in coaching, physiology, and analytics/tactics.
46
Calver, M. C., J. B. Fontaine, and T. E. Linke. "Publication models in a changing environment: bibliometric analysis of books and book chapters using publications by Surrey Beatty & Sons." Pacific Conservation Biology 19, no. 4 (2013): 394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/pc130394.
Full textAbstract:
Expectations and patterns of publication have changed markedly with evolving online availability and associated development of new citation gathering databases. Perhaps the most vulnerable components of the scientific literature to ongoing change are books and book chapters, given their elongated publication timelines and generally more limited online availability. To test this, we applied citation analyses and assessments of library holdings to determine the use of the natural history books published by Surrey Beatty & Sons between 1987 and 2010. We (i) evaluated the relative use of book chapters and journal papers by comparing citations to chapters in the five books of the Nature Conservation series by Surrey Beatty & Sons to citations of journal chapters in four Australian journals published in the same years, (ii) determined the efficacy of four different databases in retrieving citations to book chapters by comparing their recovery of citations to the five books of the Nature Conservation series, and (iii) quantified noncitation measures related to library holdings to evaluate the use of the books on the entire Surrey Beatty & Sons list. Mean citations/chapter to the first three books in the Nature Conservation series were similar to the mean citations/ paper in four Australian journals published in the same years. However, the mean citations/chapter of the last two books declined relative to citations/paper for the journals, suggesting a fall in book use evident by early this century. Citation retrieval varied across databases; Google Scholar retrieved most citations, followed by Scopus, Web of Science (Cited Reference Search) and Web of Knowledge. Contrary to published concerns, no citations retrieved by Google Scholar were in questionable sources such as contents pages - many were from highly ranked journals. Each book in the full Surrey Beatty & Sons list was held by an average of 45.3 libraries in Australia and 36.1 in the USA, and less than five in each of the UK, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada, Germany and South Africa. This was a similar coverage to another Australian publisher, the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, and indicated strong markets in Australia and the USA. It was less, though, than the number of libraries with current or past subscriptions to five Australian journals publishing nature conservation content. We conclude that citation data for books and book chapters are available and that library holdings provide another measure of use. The online ‘visibility’ of books may be a problem, but can be improved through better marketing and improved author search techniques.
47
Roszkowski, Marcin. "The Sociological and Ontological Dimensions of the Knowledge Organization Domain on Google Scholar Citations." KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION 47, no. 2 (2020): 160–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-2-160.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims to identify the profiles of researchers in the knowledge organization domain on Google Scholar Citations (GSC) and investigate its sociological and ontological dimensions. The sociological dimension is related to GSC users who declared research interests that fall within the scope of the knowledge organization domain. The ontological dimension is based on the study of these concepts. Domain analysis was used as a methodological framework for this study. A search was conducted on GSC using keywords in order to create a list of scholars who declared the knowledge organization domain as one of their research interests in their Google Scholar Profiles (GSPs). Next, the search for GSPs of authors who had published their papers in the Knowledge Organization journal from 2000 to 2019 was conducted. The results showed that there were 379 publicly available GSPs. Analysis of the affiliated institutions showed that the majority of them were based respectively in the USA, Brazil, and then in India. The ontological dimension of the knowledge organization domain on GSC was examined by studying keywords attached to GSPs. The most frequently used keywords were identified and using network analysis five clusters that represented the main areas of interest were extracted.
48
Pölönen, Janne, and Björn Hammarfelt. "Historical Bibliometrics Using Google Scholar: The Case of Roman Law, 1727–2016." Journal of Data and Information Science 5, no. 3 (July 3, 2020): 18–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0024.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the historical and linguistic coverage of Google Scholar, using publications in the field of Roman law as an example.Design/methodology/approachTo create a dataset of Roman law publications, we retrieved a total of 21,300 records of publications, published between years 1500 and 2016, with title including words denoting “Roman law” in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish.FindingsWe were able to find publications dating back to 1727. The largest number of publications and authors date to the late 19th century, and this peak might be explained by the role of Roman law in French legal education at the time. Furthermore, we found exceptionally skewed concentration of publications to authors, as well as of citations to publications. We speculate that this could be explained by the long time-frame of the study, and the importance of classic works.Research limitationMajor limitations, and potential future work, relate to data quality, and cleaning, disambiguation of publications and authors, as well as comparing coverage with other data sources.Practical implicationsWe find Google Scholar to be a promising data source for historical bibliometrics. This approach may help bridge the gap between bibliometrics and the “digital humanities”.Originality/valueEarlier studies have focused mainly on Google Scholar's coverage of publications and citations in general, or in specific fields. The historical coverage has, however, received less attention.
49
Backhoff, Eduardo, Rosalinda Rentería, Maricela López-Ornelas, and Gabriela Vidaurri. "Un estudio sobre el impacto de las revistas de investigación educativa en línea: El caso de la REDIE." education policy analysis archives 19 (September 9, 2011): 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n25.2011.
Full textAbstract:
The main purpose of this study was to determine the academic impact the Online Journal of Educational Research (REDIE) has had in the course of its first ten years of life (1999-2009). The journal was studied in terms of the number, type and source of citations of its articles, as well as the ongoing use of the references based on each article published during this period. Since REDIE is not indexed in the database of the Web of Science of Thomson Reuters (ISI, by its former acronym in English), the examination of its impact was based on quotes from open publications found in cyberspace. The search engines Google and Google Scholar looked for citations of 161 articles; the results are analyzed in terms of how often the REDIE was quoted, the type of documents that cited its articles, the home countries of the sources cited, and the behavior of the citations over time. We concluded with a summary of findings, and a comparison of citation indicators of REDIE with six Latin American journals in education and psychology.
50
Said Sife, Alfred, and Edda Tandi Lwoga. "Publication productivity and scholarly impact of academic librarians in Tanzania." New Library World 115, no. 11/12 (November 5, 2014): 527–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/nlw-04-2014-0038.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this scientometric study was to conduct an analysis of the research productivity and scholarly impact of academic librarians in Tanzania for a period of 30 years from 1984 to 2013. Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained using the Publish or Perish software which uses Google Scholar to retrieve scholars’ publications, citations and related metrics. For each librarian, the retrieved metrics were the number of papers, papers per author, citation counts, average citations per paper, average papers per author, average citations per year, average citations per author and four indices, namely, the h-index, g-index, Hc-index and the HI-norm. Findings – The study findings indicate that 434 publications were recorded for all librarians, giving an average of 14.5 publications per year. The year 2008 had the most (9.9 per cent) publications followed by 2010 (7.8 per cent), while the years 1985 and 1987 had the lowest (0.2 per cent) number of publications. About 43 per cent of the publications were single-authored and the degree of collaboration was 0.57. The top-ten ranked librarians contributed more than half (53.2 per cent) of all publications, although they showed considerable variation among different metrics. Only three journal articles had 25 or more citations. Originality/value – Previous studies on the topic are scarce, and, therefore, this paper provides useful recommendations to library and information science (LIS) schools, libraries and universities to improve research productivity of their academic librarians in Tanzania and other countries with a similar setting.