CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services

Open access
Dorsch, Isabelle, Askeridis, Johanna, Stock, Wolfgang·2018·Publications
DOI 10.3390/publications6010007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A truebounded publication list of a scientific author consists of exactly all publications that meet two criteria: (1) they are formally published (e.g., journal article or proceeding paper); (2) they have scientific, scholarly, or academic content. A publication list is overbounded if it includes documents which do not meet the two criteria (such as novels); a publication list is underbounded if it is incomplete. Are authors’ personal publication lists, found on their personal sites on the Internet or in institutional repositories, truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? And are the respective publication lists generated through bibliographic information services truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? As case studies, publications of nine International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Committee members (published between 2007 and 2016) were collected to create preferably complete personal publication lists according to the two criteria. We connect the “relative visibility of an author” with the concepts of truebounded, overbounded, and underbounded publication lists. The authors’ relative visibility values were determined for the information services Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar and compared to the relative visibility of the authors’ personal publication lists. All results of the bibliographic information services are underbounded. Relative visibility is highest in Google Scholar, followed by Scopus and WoS.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/publications6010007

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A high quality of a journal is perceived as its inclusion in WoS and Scopus, because these databases allegedly only index the highest quality sources carefully selected according to strict selection procedures.

    “Generally, a high quality of the journal is perceived as its inclusion in WoS and Scopus, because these DBs allegedly only index the highest quality sources carefully selected according to strict selection procedures [134].”

    From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [134]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [1]1. International Urban Research. The World's Metropolitan Areas ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1959; Available online: https://books.google.de/books?id=p0-6Ej\_Up3AC (accessed on 20 October 2017).
  2. [16]16. Kirkwood, P.E. Researcher publication checklist: A quantitative method to compare traditional databases to Web search engines. In Proceedings of the 119th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10-13 June 2012; 12p. Available online: https://peer.asee.org/facultypublication-checklists-a-quantitative-method-to-compare-traditional-databases-to-web-search-engines (accessed on 2 December 2017).
  3. [18]18. Stock, W.G. Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in der Wissenschaftsforschung. In Wissenschaft und Digitale Bibliothek. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 1998 ; Fuchs-Kittowski, K., Laitko, H., Parthey, H., Umstätter, W., Eds.; Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung: Berlin, Germany, 2000; pp. 239-282. Available online: http://www.wissenschaftsforschung.de/JB98\_239-282.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2017).
  4. [23]23. Haller, R. Wandlung der Wissenschaftsauffassung. In Wissenschaft und Freiheit. Ideen zur Universität und Universalität ; Busek, E., Mantl, W., Peterlik, M., Eds.; Oldenbourg: München, Germany, 1989; pp. 46-58.
  5. [25]25. Chase, J.M. Normative criteria for scientific publication. Am. Sociol. 1970 , 5 , 262-265.
  6. [27]27. Gorraiz, J.; Schiebel, E.; Gumpenberger, C.; Hörlesberger, M.; Moed, H. (Eds.) Scientific Committee. In Proceedings of the ISSI 2013 Vienna: 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienne, Austria, 15-20 July 2013; Austrian Institute of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dorsch, I., Askeridis, J., & Stock, W.
Affiliations
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Dorsch, Isabelle
ORCID
Venue
Publications
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-02-09
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
7
ISSN
2304-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/publications6010007
OpenAlex
W2793956010
Cited by
17
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
bibliography of publications, bibliographic information services, author visibility, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, institutional repositories, 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