Multi-faceted Citation Analysis for Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications

Despite the widespread use. critics claim that citation analysis has serious limitations in evaluating the research performance of scholars. First. conventional citation analysis methods yield one-dimensional and sometimes misleading evaluation as a result of not taking into account differences in citation quality, not filtering out citation noise such as self-citations. and not considering non-numeric aspects of citations such as language. culture, and time. Second, the citation database coverage of today is disjoint and incomplete, which can result in conflicting quality assessment outcomes across different data sources. This paper discuss the findings from a citation analysis study that measured the impact of scholarly publications based on the data mined from Web of Science. Scopus, and Google Scholar, and briefly describes a work-in-progress prototype system called CiteSearch, which is designed to overcome the weaknesses of existing citation analysis methods with a robust citation-based quality assessment approach.

[1]  D. Aksnes,et al.  Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university , 2004 .

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

[3]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis , 1996, Scientometrics.

[4]  Grant Lewison,et al.  Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine , 2001 .

[5]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[6]  Nisa Bakkalbasi,et al.  An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment , 2005, D Lib Mag..

[7]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management, , 2001, Inf. Res..

[8]  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 .

[9]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Information and Library Science MPACT: A Preliminary Analysis , 2006 .

[10]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research , 1996, Scientometrics.

[11]  Debora Shaw,et al.  A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources , 2008, Scientometrics.

[12]  Alireza Noruzi.  Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes , 2005 .

[13]  Lei Wang,et al.  Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science , 2006, Biomedical digital libraries.

[14]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[15]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises , 1996, Scientometrics.

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

[17]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Some measures for comparing citation databases , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[18]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. , 1998, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[19]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis , 1992, Scientometrics.

[20]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[21]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines , 2008, Scientometrics.

[22]  G. Holden,et al.  Bibliometrics , 2005, Social work in health care.

[23]  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, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[25]  Thomas E. Nisonger,et al.  Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness , 2004 .

[26]  Carl T. Bergstrom.  Eigenfactor Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals , 2007 .