The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science
Abstract
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 indicate 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 when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf · Cited by 5,039
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974
Self-citationComparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001 · Cited by 733
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Meho, L. I. (2007) · Physics World · doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33 · Cited by 371
Self-citationDeflated, inflated and phantom citation counts
Jacso, P. (2006) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520610675816 · Cited by 156
Cited by
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 · Cited by 1,925
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 · Cited by 1,002
Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21062 · Cited by 833
Digital twin application in the construction industry: A literature review
Opoku, D.-G. J., Perera, S., Osei-Kyei, R., & Rashidi, M. (2021) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102726 · Cited by 753
Metadata
- Authors
- Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05-27
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1711-1726
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W4243763775
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.20874
- The paper
- Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20874
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.