The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
Open accessAbstract
When faculty members are evaluated, they are judged in part by the impact and quality of their scholarly publications. While all academic institutions look to publication counts and venues as well as the subjective opinions of peers, many hiring, tenure, and promotion committees also rely on citation analysis to obtain a more objective assessment of an author's work. Consequently, faculty members try to identify as many citations to their published works as possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of their publication impact on the scholarly and professional communities. The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases, which are widely used as a starting point if not the only source for locating citations, have several limitations that may leave gaps in the coverage of citations to an author's work. This paper presents a case study comparing citations found in Scopus and Google Scholar with those found in Web of Science (the portal used to search the three ISI citation databases) for items published by two Library and Information Science full‐time faculty members. In addition, the paper presents a brief overview of a prototype system called CiteSearch, which analyzes combined data from multiple citation databases to produce citation‐based quality evaluation measures.
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
Scholarly communication and bibliometrics
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 · Cited by 1,121
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 884
Problems of citation analysis: A critical review
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(198909)40:5<342::aid-asi7>3.0.co;2-u · Cited by 803
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6 · Cited by 764
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129604 · Cited by 503
Google Scholar: the pros and the cons
Jacsó, P. (2005) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520510598066 · Cited by 383 · cited 1×
“across the web (Bauer & Bakkalbasi, 2005; Gardner & Eng, 2005; Jacso, 2005b; Wleklinski, 2005).”
van Raan, A. F. J. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129602 · Cited by 382
The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication
Hurd, J. M. (1985) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(85)90080-9 · Cited by 356
The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research
Martin, B. R. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129599 · Cited by 356
The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication
Cronin, B. (1984) · International Linear Collider · Cited by 355
Cited by
bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 · Cited by 16,064
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 · Cited by 2,342
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
Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777 · Cited by 1,110
Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics
Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., Roychoudhury, S., Homa, S., Puchalt, N., Ramasamy, R., et al. (2016) · Asian Journal of Andrology · doi:10.4103/1008-682x.171582 · Cited by 639
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, K., & Meho, L. I.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-15
- ISSN
- 0044-7870 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-8390
- OpenAlex
- W2002117998
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 4.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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 Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/meet.14504301185
- The paper
- Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185
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.
