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

Volumn 59, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1711-1726

  Meho, Lokman I ^a   Rogers, Yvonne ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

H-INDEX;

COMPUTER NETWORKS; COMPUTERS; FLOW INTERACTIONS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 51049097292     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20874     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415 (6873), 726-729.
2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fegi?artid= 1533854
3. Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2006). Science indicators revisited - Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information Services & Use, 26(4), 293-301.
4. Ballard, S., & Henry, M. (2006), Citation searching: New players, new tools. The Searcher, 14(9), 24-33.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2006). An egocentric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1553-1566.
6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008a). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century: A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1-52.
7. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008b). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
8. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.
9. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved November 25, 2007. from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html
10. Borgman, C.L. (Ed.). (1990). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park: Sage.
11. Borgman, C.L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3-72.
12. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(5), 830-837.
13. Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 565-574.
14. Cronin, B. (1996). Rates of return to citation. Journal of Documentation, 52(2), 188-197.
15. Cronin, B., & Meho, L.I. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.
16. Cronin, B., & Meho, L.I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551-564.
17. Dillon, T.W. (1995). Mapping the discourse of HCI researchers with citation analysis. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(4), 56-62.
18. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.
19. Galliers, R.D., & Whitley, E.A. (2002, June). An anatomy of European information systems research ECIS 1993-ECIS 2002: Some initial findings. Paper presented at the Tenth European Conference on Information Systems: Information systems and the future of the digital economy, Gdansk, Poland, pp. 3-18. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20020131.pdf
20. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.
21. Golderman, G., & Connolly, B. (2007, January 15). Who cited this? Library Journal netConnect, 132, 18-26.
22. Goodman, D., & Deis, L. (2007). Update on Scopus and Web of Science. The Charleston Advisor, 8(3), 15-18.
23. Goodrum, A.A., McCain, K.W., Lawrence. S., & Giles. C.L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing & Management, 37(5). 661-675.
24. Grudin, J. (2008). A moving target: The evolution of HCI. In A. Sears & J.A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (2nd ed.). (pp. 1-24). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Hewett, T.T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., et al. (1992), ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved March 3, 2008 from http://sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html
26. 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.
27. Jacsó, 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, Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf
28. Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated, and phantom citation counts, Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309.
29. Jin, B.H., Liang, L.M., & Rousseau R. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863.
30. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273-294.
31. Meho, L.I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20(1), 32-36.
32. Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
33. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
34. Moed, H.F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575-583.
35. Moed, H.F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153-161.
36. Moed, H.F., & Visser, M.S. (2007). Developing bibliometric indicators of research performance in computer science: An exploratory study. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, the Netherlands. Research Report to the Council for Physical Sciences of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), CWTS Report 2007-01. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.cwts.nl/cwts/NWO_Inf_Final_Report_V_210207. pdf
37. Neary, J.P., Mirrlees, J.A., & Tirole, J. (2003). Evaluating economics research in Europe: An introduction. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(6), 1239-1249.
38. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., & Asher, A. (2008). Google Scholar goes to school: The presence of Google Scholar on college and university Web sites. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 39-51.
39. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2003). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709-730.
40. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.
41. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.
42. Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301.
43. Oulasvirta, A. (2007). CHI statistics. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.hiit.fi/node/290
44. Palacios-Huerta, I., & Volij, O. (2004). The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica, 72(3), 963-977.
45. Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing & Management, 12(5), 297-312.
46. Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., van Vuren, H.G., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.
47. Roth, D.L. (2005). The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and Web of Science. Current Science, 89(9), 1531-1536. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1531.pdf
48. Sanderson, M. (2008). Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 59(7), 1184-1190.
49. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
50. Shneiderman, B., & Lewis, C. (1993). Building HCI partnerships and infrastructure. Behaviour & Information Technology, 12(2), 130-135.
51. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799-813.
52. Testa, J. (2004), The Thomson Scientific journal selection process. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/ selectionofmaterial/journalselection/
53. Valero, P., & Monk, A. (1998). Positioning HCI: journals, descriptors, and parent disciplines. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(1), 3-9.
54. 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.
55. van Raan, A.F.J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Sciento-metrics, 62(1), 133-143.
56. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from Web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.
57. Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453-459.
58. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.
59. White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, 99-168.
60. White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.