| Author | Title | Year | Journal/Proceedings | Reftype | DOI/URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haley, M. R. | Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar: How does the new publish or perish option compare? | 2014 | Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology | article | DOIURL |
| Abstract: Recently, Harzing's Publish or Perish software was updated to include Microsoft Academic Search as a second citation database search option for computing various citation-based metrics. This article explores the new search option by scoring 50 top economics and finance journals and comparing them with the results obtained using the original Google Scholar-based search option. The new database delivers significantly smaller scores for all metrics, but the rank correlations across the two databases for the h-index, g-index, AWCR, and e-index are significantly correlated, especially when the time frame is restricted to more recent years. Comparisons are also made to the Article Influence score from eigenfactor.org and to the RePEc h-index, both of which adjust for journal-level self-citations. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{haley2014ranking,
author = {Haley, M. Ryan},
title = {Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar: How does the new publish or perish option compare?},
journal = {Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology},
year = {2014},
volume = {65},
number = {5},
pages = {1079--1084},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23080},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23080}
}
|
|||||
| Li, X., Thelwall, M. & Giustini, D. | Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement | 2012 | Scientometrics | article | DOIURL |
| Abstract: This paper investigates whether CiteULike and Mendeley are useful for measuring scholarly influence, using a sample of 1,613 papers published in Nature and Science in 2007. Traditional citation counts from the Web of Science (WoS) were used as benchmarks to compare with the number of users who bookmarked the articles in one of the two free online reference manager sites. Statistically significant correlations were found between the user counts and the corresponding WoS citation counts, suggesting that this type of influence is related in some way to traditional citation-based scholarly impact but the number of users of these systems seems to be still too small for them to challenge traditional citation indexes. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{li2012validating,
author = {Li, Xuemei and Thelwall, Mike and Giustini, Dean},
title = {Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement},
journal = {Scientometrics},
publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
year = {2012},
volume = {91},
number = {2},
pages = {461-471},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x}
}
|
|||||
| López-Cózar, E. D., Robinson-García, N. & Torres-Salinas, D. | Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting | 2012 | misc | URL | |
| Abstract: The launch of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics may provoke revolution in the research evaluation field as it places within every searchers reach tools that allow bibliometric measuring. In order to alert e research community over how easily one can manipulate the data and bliometric indicators offered by Google s products we present an experiment which we manipulate the Google Citations profiles of a research group rough the creation of false documents that cite their documents, and nsequently, the journals in which they have published modifying their H dex. For this purpose we created six documents authored by a faked author and uploaded them to a researcher s personal website under the University of anadas domain. The result of the experiment meant an increase of 774 tations in 129 papers (six citations per paper) increasing the authors and urnals H index. We analyse the malicious effect this type of practices can use to Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics. Finally, we nclude with several deliberations over the effects these malpractices may ve and the lack of control tools these tools offer |
|||||
BibTeX:
@misc{lpezczar2012manipulating,
author = {López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado and Robinson-García, Nicolás and Torres-Salinas, Daniel},
title = {Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics:
simple, easy and tempting},
year = {2012},
note = {cite arxiv:1212.0638Comment: 10 pages, 4 figures},
url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638}
}
|
|||||
Created by JabRef export filters on 01/05/2024 by the social publication management platform PUMA