Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.079

Multi-faceted Citation Analysis for Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications  

Yang, Ki-Duk (Keimyung University. Department of Library and Information Science)
Meho, Lokman (American University of Beirut. Department of Political Science and Public Administration)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management / v.28, no.2, 2011 , pp. 79-96 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
citation analysis; quality assessment; scholarly publication; fusion method; citation database;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Seglen, P. O. 1998. "Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research." Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(3): 224-229.   DOI
2 van Raan, A. F. J. 1996. "Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises." Scientometrics, 36(3): 397-420.   DOI
3 Vaughan, L., and D. Shaw. 2008. "A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources." Scientometrics, 74(2): 317-330.   DOI
4 West, J. D., C. T. Bergstrom, and T. C. Bergstrom. 2010. "Big Macs and Eigenfactor Scores: Don't Let Correlation Coefficients Fool You." [online]. [cited 2011.05.05]. .
5 Aksnes, D. W. and R. E. Taxt. 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university." Research Evaluation, 13(1): 33-41.   DOI
6 Bakkalbasi, N., K. Bauer, J. Glover, and L. Wang. 2006. "Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science." Biomedical Digital Libraries, 7.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Bar-Ilan, J. 2006. "An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes." Information Processing and Management, 42(6): 1553-1566.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Bar-Ilan, J. 2008. "Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar." Scientometrics, 74(2): 257-271.   DOI
9 Kousha, K., and M. Thelwall. 2006. "Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines." In Book of Abstracts, 9th International Science & Technology Indicators Conference, Leuven, Belgium: 72-73.
10 Kleinberg, J. 1998. "Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment." Proceeding of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 668-677.
11 Lewison, G. 2001. "Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine." Research Evaluation, 10(2): 89-95.   DOI
12 MacRoberts, M. H., and B. R. MacRoberts. 1996. "Problems of citation analysis." Scientometrics, 36(3): 435-444.   DOI
13 Marchionini, G., P. Solomon, C. Davis, and T. Russell. 2006. "Information and library science MPACT: A preliminary analysis." Library & Information Science Research, 28(4).
14 Nisonger, T. E. 2004. "Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness." College & Research Libraries, 65(2): 152-163.   DOI
15 Martin, B. R. 1996. "The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research." Scientometrics, 36(3): 343-362.   DOI
16 Meho, L. I., and K. Yang. 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13): 2105-2125.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Moed, H. F. 2005. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer, Berlin.
18 Norris, M., and C. Oppenheim. 2007. "Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature." Journal of Informetrics, 1(2): 161-169.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Noruzi, A. 2005. "Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes." Libri, 55(4): 170-180.   DOI
20 Bar-Ilan, J., M. Levene, and A. Lin. 2007. "Some measures for comparing citation databases." Journal of Informetrics, 1(1): 26-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Bauer, K. and N. Bakkalbasi. 2005. "An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment." D-Lib Magazine, 11(9).
22 Bergstrom, C. T. 2007. "Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals." College & Research Libraries News, 68(5).
23 Cronin, B. 1984. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. London: Taylor Graham.
24 Egghe, L. 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index." Scientometrics, 69(1): 131-152.   DOI
25 Holmes, A., and C. Oppenheim. 2001. "Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management." Information Research, 6(2).
26 Giustini, D. 2006. "Blog posting at UBC Academic Search-Google Scholar Blog." [cited 2011.05.05]. .
27 Hirsch, J. E. 2005. "An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46): 16569-16572.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Holden, G., G. Rosenberg, and K. Barker. 2005. "Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions." Social Work in Health Care, 41(3-4): 67-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Jacso, P. 2005. "As we may search-comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases." Current Science, 89(9): 1537-1547.