1 |
Gautam, P. (2016). Comparative Analysis of Scientific Publications of Research Entities Using Multiple Disciplinary Classifications. 2016 IIAI 5th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, Kumamoto, Japan, 523-528. doi:10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.117
|
2 |
Gautam, P. (2017). Scientific Publications and World University Rankings: Focus on Bibliometric Indicators at Institution (Hokkaido University) and Department (Dental Medicine) Levels. Hokkaido Journal of Dental Science, 38, 2-15.
|
3 |
Glanzel, W. (2003). A Course on Theory and Application of Bibliometric Indicators, Course Handouts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242406991 (accessed on 2016/8/18).
|
4 |
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
DOI
|
5 |
Jalali, S. M. J., & Park, H. W. (2018). State of the art in business analytics: themes and collaborations. Quality & Quantity, 52(2), 627-633. doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0522-7
DOI
|
6 |
JSPS (2015). Application Procedures for Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI). http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-grantsinaid/22_startup_support/data/27/h27_kensta_koubo_e.pdf.
|
7 |
Lee, Y.-G. (2013). Multidisciplinary team research as an innovation engine in knowledge-based transition economies and implication for Asian countries. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 12(1), 49-63.
DOI
|
8 |
Leydesdorff, L. (2013). An evaluation of impacts in "Nanoscience & nanotechnology": steps towards standards for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 94(1), 35-55. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0750-5
DOI
|
9 |
Lopez-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegon, F., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 304-316. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001
DOI
|
10 |
Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711-1726. doi:10.1002/asi.20874
DOI
|
11 |
Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A., & Jang, H. J. (2013). Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Peerj, 1, 16. doi:10.7717/peerj.183
DOI
|
12 |
Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613-625. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0
DOI
|
13 |
Mirkin, B. (2011). Core Concepts in Data Analysis: Summarization, Correlation and Visualization, Springer.
|
14 |
Moed, H. F. (2010). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer.
|
15 |
Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967-990. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y
DOI
|
16 |
Moed, H. F., Markusova, V., & Akoev, M. (2018). Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1153-1180. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8
DOI
|
17 |
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
DOI
|
18 |
Williams, R., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The Substantive and Practical Significance of Citation Impact Differences Between Institutions: Guidelines for the Analysis of Percentiles Using Effect Sizes and Confidence Intervals. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact, Springer, Cham, 259-281. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_12https://doi.org/
|
19 |
Nederhof, A. J., Meijer, R. F., Moed, H. F., & Vanraan, A. F. J. (1993). RESEARCH PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS - A STUDY OF AN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. Scientometrics, 27(2), 157-178. doi:10.1007/bf02016548
DOI
|
20 |
Prathap, G. (2013). Benchmarking research performance of the IITs using Web of Science and Scopus bibliometric databases. Current Science, 105(8), 1134-1138.
|
21 |
Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. doi:10.1177/1094428114562629
DOI
|
22 |
Thelwall, M. (2018). Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 430-435. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
DOI
|
23 |
Prins, A. A. M., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 264-270. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv049
DOI
|
24 |
Rafols, I. (2014). Knowledge Integration and Diffusion: Measures and Mapping of Diversity and Coherence. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact, Springer, Cham, 169-190. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_8
|
25 |
Santa, S., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). Scientific production in Latin America and the Caribbean: an approach using the data from Scopus, 1996-2007. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 33(2), 379-400.
|
26 |
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
DOI
|
27 |
Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Juznic, P., & Stopar, K. (2016). Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit. Scientometrics, 109(2), 979-996. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6
DOI
|
28 |
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact, Springer, Cham, 285-320. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
|
29 |
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587-600. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0
DOI
|
30 |
Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., . . . Borner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
DOI
|
31 |
de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547-1565. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
DOI
|
32 |
Borner, K., & Polley, D. E. (2014). Replicable Science of Science Studies. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact, Springer, Cham, 321-341. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_14
|
33 |
Clarivate Analytics (2015a). https://clarivate.com/products/ (access to Web of Science and InCites under licensed subscription only)
|
34 |
Clarivate Analytics (2015b). Master Journal List. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
|
35 |
Clausen, S-E. (1998). Applied Correspondence Analysis: An Introduction, SAGE Publications.
|
36 |
De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007
DOI
|
37 |
Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83(1), 243-258. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2
DOI
|
38 |
Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8-21. doi:10.1108/14684520810865958
DOI
|
39 |
Gautam, P., Kodama, K., & Enomoto, K. (2014). Joint bibliometric analysis of patents and scholarly publications from cross-disciplinary projects: implications for development of evaluative metrics. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13(1), 19-37.
DOI
|
40 |
Gautam, P. (2015). Deciphering the Department-Discipline Relationships within a University through Bibliometric Analysis of Publications Aided with Multivariate Techniques. 2015 IIAI 4th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, Okayama, Japan, 468-471. doi:10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2015.212
|