Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. Cronin, Lokman Meho (2006)
Using the h-index to rank influential information scientistsJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 57
Michael Norris, C. Oppenheim (2010)
Peer review and the h-index: Two studiesJ. Informetrics, 4
P. Jacsó (2008)
The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Web of ScienceOnline Inf. Rev., 32
P. Jacsó (2009)
Database source coverage: hypes, vital signs and reality checksOnline Inf. Rev., 33
Lokman Meho, Kiduk Yang (2007)
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholarJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 58
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert (2006)
A Hirsch-type index for journalsScientometrics, 69
P. Jacsó (2009)
Errors of omission and their implications for computing scientometric measures in evaluating the publishing productivity and impact of countriesOnline Inf. Rev., 33
G. Prathap
Hirsch‐type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output
Linda Butler (2008)
Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality FrameworkEthics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8
H. Moed (2008)
UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?Scientometrics, 74
P. Jacsó (1997)
Content Evaluation of Databases., 32
T. Lazaridis (2010)
Ranking university departments using the mean h-indexScientometrics, 82
L. Egghe (2006)
An improvement of the h-index: the g-index, 2
J. Hirsch (2005)
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research outputProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 46
P. Jacsó (2009)
Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish softwareOnline Inf. Rev., 33
P. Jacsó (2008)
The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google ScholarOnline Inf. Rev., 32
P. Jacsó (2007)
How big is a database versus how is a database bigOnline Inf. Rev., 31
L.I. Meho, Y. Rogers
Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science
J. Vanclay (2007)
On the robustness of the h-indexJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 58
Lokman Meho, Y. Rogers (2008)
A proposal for a dynamic h-type indexJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59
M. García-Pérez (2010)
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 PsychologyJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 61
P. Jacsó (2009)
The h-index for countries in Web of Science and ScopusOnline Inf. Rev., 33
P. Jacsó (2008)
Testing the Calculation of a Realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. LancasterLibrary Trends, 56
P. Jacsó
Google Scholar's ghost authors and lost authors
C. Oppenheim (2007)
Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianshipJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 58
P. Jacsó (2010)
Metadata mega mess in Google ScholarOnline Inf. Rev., 34
M. Henzinger, Jacob Suñol, Ingmar Weber (2009)
The stability of the h-indexScientometrics, 84
M. Banks (2006)
An extension of the Hirsch index: Indexing scientific topics and compoundsScientometrics, 69
Massimo Franceschet (2010)
A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google ScholarScientometrics, 83
P. Jacsó (2008)
The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databasesOnline Inf. Rev., 32
G. Nunberg
Google's Book Search: a disaster for scholars
Jonathan Levitt, M. Thelwall (2007)
The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patternsScientometrics, 78
J. Bar-Ilan (2010)
Rankings of information and library science journals by JIF and by h-type indicesJ. Informetrics, 4
P. Jacsó (2008)
The pros and cons of computing the h-index using ScopusOnline Inf. Rev., 32
Jiang Li, M. Sanderson, P. Willett, Michael Norris, C. Oppenheim (2010)
Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgmentsJ. Informetrics, 4
P. Jacsó (2007)
The dimensions of cited reference enhanced database subsetsOnline Inf. Rev., 31
Purpose – The h‐index has been used to evaluate research productivity and impact (as manifested by the number of publications and the number of citations received) at many levels of aggregations for various targets. The purpose of this paper is to examine the bibliometric characteristics of the largest multidisciplinary databases that are the most widely used for measuring research productivity and impact. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents preliminary findings about the Scopus database. It is to be complemented and contrasted by the bibliometric profile of the Web of Science (WoS) database. Findings – The test results showed that 18.7 million Scopus records had one or more cited references, representing 42 per cent of the entire database content. The ratio of cited reference enhanced records kept slightly increasing year by year from 1996 to 2009. Scopus classifies the journals and other serial sources into 27 broad subject areas by assigning its journals to 21 science disciplines, four social science disciplines, a single Arts and Humanities category, and/or a multidisciplinary category. The distribution of records among the broad subject areas can be searched in Scopus using the four‐character codes of the subject areas. A journal or a single primary document may be assigned to more than one subject area. However, Scopus overdoes this, and it significantly distorts the h‐index for the broad subject areas. The h‐index of the pre‐1996 subset of records for the 21,066,019 documents published before 1996 is 1,451, i.e. there are records for 1,451 documents in that subset that were cited more than 1,450 times. The total number of citations received by these 1,451 papers (i.e. the h‐core, representing the number of items that contribute to the h‐index) is 4,416,488, producing an average citation rate of 3,044 citations per item in the h‐core of the pre‐1996 subset of the entire Scopus database. For the subset providing records for 23,455,354 documents published after 1995, the h‐index is 1,339, so the total number of citations must be at least 1,792,921. In reality the total number of citations received by these papers is 3,903,157, yielding a citation rate of 2,915 citations per document in the h‐core. For the entire Scopus database of 44.5 million records the h‐index is 1,757. Originality/value – Knowing the bibliometric features of databases, their own h‐index and related metrics versus those of the alternative tools can be very useful for computing a variety of research performance indicators. However, we need to learn much more about our tools in our rush to metricise everything before we can rest assured that our gauges gauge correctly or at least with transparent limitations. Learning the bibliometric profile of the tools used to measure the research performance of researchers, departments, universities and journals can help in making better informed decisions, and discovering the limitations of the measuring tools.
Online Information Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jun 21, 2011
Keywords: Serials; Very large databases; Research work
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.