The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology
Abstract
Hirsch's h index is becoming the standard measure of an individual's research accomplishments. The aggregation of individuals' measures is also the basis for global measures at institutional or national levels. To investigate whether the h index can be reliably computed through alternative sources of citation records, the Web of Science (WoS), PsycINFO and Google Scholar (GS) were used to collect citation records for known publications of four Spanish psychologists. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO included a larger percentage of publication records, whereas GS outperformed WoS and PsycINFO in this respect. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO retrieved a larger number of citations in unique areas of psychology, but it retrieved a smaller number of citations in areas that are close to statistics or the neurosciences, whereas GS retrieved the largest numbers of citations in all cases. Incorrect citations were scarce in Wos (0.3%), more prevalent in PsycINFO (1.1%), and overwhelming in GS (16.5%). All platforms retrieved unique citations, the largest set coming from GS. WoS and PsycINFO cover distinct areas of psychology unevenly, thus applying different penalties on the h index of researches working in different fields. Obtaining fair and accurate h indices required the union of citations retrieved by all three platforms.
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
“Studies have shown that reference and citation errors are often neglected in different specialty journals”
From How accurate are cited references in Iranian peer-reviewed journals? (2016) · cites this paper as García-Pérez, 2010
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
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
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001 · Cited by 841
Kulkarni, A. V. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · Cited by 821
Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review
Nederhof, A. J. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2 · Cited by 785
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
Journal impact factor: a brief review.
Garfield, E. (1999) · PubMed · Cited by 744
Comparing 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
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Jacsó P., 2005, As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation‐b ased and citation‐e nhanced databases, Current Science, 89, 1537
- Jacsó P., 2005, Digital libraries: Implementing strategies and sharing experiences (pp. 360–369)
- Osca‐Lluch J., 2009, Consecuencias de los errores en las referencias bibliográficas [Consequences of the error in bibliographical references: The specific case of the journal Psicothema], El caso de la revista Psicothema. Psicothema, 300
- Salgado J.F., 2007, La productividad científica y el índice h de Hirsch de la psicología social española: Convergencia entre indicadores de productividad y comparación con otrasáreas [Scientific productivity and Hirsch's h Index of Spanish social psychology: Convergence between productivity indexes and comparison with other areas], Psicothema, 19, 179
- Shadbolt N., 2006, Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects (pp. 195–206)
- Topo Universitario. (2008) Factor de impacto del International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology [Impact factor of the International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology]. Retrieved May 19 2010 fromhttp://unnombrealazar.blogspot.com/2008/09/factor‐de‐impacto‐del‐international.html
- Vaughan L., 2008, A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from university, Scientometrics, 81, 587
- Walters W.H., 2007, Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, 43Web sources, Scientometrics, 74, 317
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
How deep learning shapes disaster research: a bibliometric analysis
Çelik, M. A., & Akıner, M. E. (2026) · Discover Civil Engineering · doi:10.1007/s44290-026-00533-8
Metadata
- Authors
- García‐Pérez, M. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-09-15
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2070-2085
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W4250137533
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 6.00
- 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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- h-index, citation analysis, citation indexes, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, citation accuracy, publication records, research evaluation, psychology, bibliographic databases
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
