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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“larger, multidisciplinary search systems seem to provide more complete citation information than smaller specialized search systems.”
In the citing paper
“Comparisons of citation indexes generally rate Google Scholar as the most comprehensive.71, 72, 73”
Citations
Cites
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720 · cited 1×
“%) of all of the databases' 2,733 citations for the study group, reflecting the Matthew Effect in citations—a small number of sources attracts the lion's share of citations and a large number of sources receives relatively few (Merton, 1968).”
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770
Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440370106 · Cited by 1,930
Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
Moed, H. F. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,493
Scholarly communication and bibliometrics
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 · Cited by 1,147
Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities
Wallin, J. A. (2005) · Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x · Cited by 913
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6 · Cited by 760
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · Cited by 752
What do we know about the h index?
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20609 · Cited by 672
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Bar‐Ilan J., 2006, H‐index for Price medalists revisited, ISSI Newsletter, 2, 3
- Börner K., 2006, Network science: A theoretical and practical framework, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40
- Elsevier Science Publishers, 2006, Scopus [Electronic database]
- Goodman D., 2005, Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus, The Charleston Advisor, 6
- Retrieved February 15 2006 fromhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/46/16569.
- 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
- Narin F., 1976, Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity
- Persson O., 2005, Most cited universities and authors in library & information Science 1990–2004, Bibliometric Notes, 7
- 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
- Thomson Scientific. (2006).Journal citation reports [Electronic database]. Philadelphia: Author.
- Wleklinski J.M., 2005, Studying Google Scholar: Wall to wall coverage?, Online, 29, 22
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 · Cited by 1,990
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Chen, C. (2017) · Journal of Data and Information Science · doi:10.1515/jdis-2017-0006 · Cited by 2,134
Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · Cited by 1,784
Metadata
- Authors
- Meho, L. I., & Yang, K.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- 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
- 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
- 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
