Google Scholar Metrics for Publications

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the software and content features of the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) service launched in April 2012.Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews GSM, examining the software, browsing, searching and sorting functions, citation matching and content.Findings – The paper reveals that the service can offer a better alternative than the traditional Google Scholar service to discover and judge the standing of journals through the prism of their citedness. GSM could become a potentially useful complementary resource primarily by virtue of its brand recognition, and the convenience of not requiring the installation of additional software, but currently its bibliometric indicators are often inappropriate for decision making in matters of tenure, promotion, grants and accreditation.Originality/value – The paper provides a good understanding of the GSM service.

[1]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Anthony Pecotich,et al.  An extension of the citation analysis of selected marketing j ournals , 1989 .

[3]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Short communication A Hirsch -type index for journals * , 2006 .

[4]  M. Polonsky,et al.  What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Journals? , 2005 .

[5]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late? , 2012 .

[6]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A Hirsch-type index for journals , 2006, Scientometrics.

[7]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Software issues related to cited references , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..

[8]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Péter Jacsó.  Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism , 2012, Scientometrics.

[10]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  THE NEED FOR END-USER CUSTOMIZATION OF THE JOURNAL- SETS OF THE SUBJECT CATEGORIES IN THE SCIMAGO JOURNAL RANKING DATABASE FOR MORE APPROPRIATE LEAGUE LISTS. A CASE STUDY FOR THE LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE FIELD , 2013 .

[11]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[12]  M. Reimann,et al.  Worldwide Faculty Perceptions of Marketing Journals: Rankings, Trends, Comparisons, and Segmentations , 2009 .

[13]  Péter Jacsó.  Differences in the rank position of journals by Eigenfactor metrics and the five-year impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports and the Eigenfactor Project web site , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[14]  J. Tanner,et al.  Surveying the Cites: A Ranking of Marketing Journals Using Citation Analysis , 2004 .

[15]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.

[16]  Linda Butler,et al.  Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework , 2008 .

[17]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[18]  Alexander I. Pudovkin,et al.  Percentile Rank and Author Superiority Indexes for Evaluating Individual Journal Articles and the Author’s Overall Citation Performance , 2009 .

[19]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do we need the E-index in addition to the h-index and its variants? , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Gary E. Gorman.  "They can't read, but they sure can count": Flawed rules of the journal rankings game , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[21]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h‐index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia – siren songs and air‐raid sirens , 2012 .

[22]  Janet R. Mccoll-Kennedy,et al.  Perceptions of Marketing Journals by Senior Academics in Australia and New Zealand , 2004 .

[23]  Geoffrey N. Soutar,et al.  Journal Quality: A Google Scholar Analysis , 2009 .

[24]  Miguel A. García-Pérez,et al.  A multidimensional extension to Hirsch’s h-index , 2009, Scientometrics.

[25]  Stephen J. Bensman.  The impact factor: its place in Garfield’s thought, in science evaluation, and in library collection management , 2011, Scientometrics.

[26]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Testing the Calculation of a Realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster , 2008, Libr. Trends.

[27]  Art Weinstein,et al.  Marketing Journal Rankings Revisited: Research Findings and Academic Implications , 1998 .

[28]  Ronald J. Bauerly,et al.  An evaluation of journals used in doctoral marketing programs , 2005 .

[29]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[30]  Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al.  Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview , 2008, J. Documentation.

[31]  John Panaretos,et al.  Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices , 2008, Scientometrics.

[32]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Commentary on the Mort et al. Paper: Journal Rankings: How Much Credence Should We Give Them? , 2004 .

[33]  Michael Jay Polonsky,et al.  Commentary on the Mort et al. Paper: Journal Rankings: Does One Size Fit All? , 2004 .

[34]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Content Evaluation of Databases. , 1997 .

[35]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[36]  R. Pieters,et al.  The Structural Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Subareas over Time , 2003 .

[37]  Gad Saad,et al.  Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively , 2006, Scientometrics.

[38]  Michael Jay Polonsky,et al.  A Multi-Dimensional Examination of Marketing Journal Rankings by North American Academics , 2006 .

[39]  Péter Jacsó.  Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[40]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? , 2011, Scientometrics.

[41]  Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar,et al.  The impact of scientific journals of communication: Comparing Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science and Scopus , 2013 .

[42]  M. Polonsky,et al.  Accessibility: An Alternative Method of Ranking Marketing Journals? , 1999 .

[43]  Péter Jacsó.  Citation-enhanced indexing/abstracting databases , 2004, Online Inf. Rev..

[44]  V. Theoharakis,et al.  Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective , 2002 .

[45]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Peer review and the h-index: Two studies , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[46]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..

[47]  Michelle D. Steward,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings , 2010 .

[48]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Database source coverage: hypes, vital signs and reality checks , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..

[49]  Daniela Rosenstreich,et al.  Journal Reputations and Academic Reputations - The Role of Ranking Studies , 2007 .

[50]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The h‐index, h‐core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the Web of Science database in three configurations , 2011 .

[51]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[52]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Changing of the guard , 2009 .

[53]  Mourad Touzani,et al.  Ranking Marketing Journals Using the Search Engine Google Scholar , 2010 .

[54]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[55]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar , 2007 .

[56]  Mourad Touzani,et al.  Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based hg-index , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[57]  P. Jacsó.  As we may search : Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases , 2005 .

[58]  Dick Kaser.  On Average: How Your Library Budget Stacks Up. , 2011 .

[59]  G. Hult,et al.  Faculty Perceptions of Marketing Journals , 1997 .

[60]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Pragmatic issues in calculating and comparing the quantity and quality of research through rating and ranking of researchers based on peer reviews and bibliometric indicators from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2010 .

[61]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[62]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[63]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective , 2011 .

[64]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Revealed reader preference for marketing journals , 2009 .