CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 974scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar

Meho, Lokman I., Yang, Kiduk·2007·Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
DOI 10.1002/asi.20677
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non‐English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.20677

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bar‐Ilan J., 2006, H‐index for Price medalists revisited, ISSI Newsletter, 2, 3
  2. Börner K., 2006, Network science: A theoretical and practical framework, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40
  3. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2006, Scopus [Electronic database]
  4. Goodman D., 2005, Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus, The Charleston Advisor, 6
  5. Retrieved February 15 2006 fromhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/46/16569.
  6. Jacsó P., 2005, As we may search—comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation‐based and citation‐enhanced databases, Current Science, 89, 1537
  7. Narin F., 1976, Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity
  8. Persson O., 2005, Most cited universities and authors in library & information Science 1990–2004, Bibliometric Notes, 7
  9. Reed K.L., 1995, Citation analysis of faculty publications: Beyond Science Citation Index and Social Science [sic] Citation Index, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83, 503
  10. Thomson Scientific. (2006).Journal citation reports [Electronic database]. Philadelphia: Author.
  11. Wleklinski J.M., 2005, Studying Google Scholar: Wall to wall coverage?, Online, 29, 22

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 974

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-30
Volume
58
Issue
13
Pages
2105-2125
ISSN
  • 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2890
DOI
10.1002/asi.20677
OpenAlex
W4255356361
Cited by
974
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 53
FWCI
42.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
Keywords
citation indexes, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, library and information science faculty, citation counts, scholar ranking, citation analysis, database coverage, non-English-language journals, scholarly impact

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review