Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 27-35

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Marx, Werner ^b   Schier, Hermann ^b   Rahm, Erhard ^c   Thor, Andreas ^c   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^a,d  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR FESTKÖRPERFORSCHUNG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Chemical Abstracts; Citation analysis; Google Scholar; Science Citation Index; Scopus; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149461809     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Aaltojarvi I., Arminen I., Auranen O., and Pasanen H.M. Scientific productivity, web visibility and citation patterns in sixteen Nordic sociology departments. Acta Sociologica 51 1 (2008) 5-22
2. Bakkalbasi N., Bauer K., Glover J., and Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3 7 (2006)
3. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 2 (2008) 257-271
4. Bauer K., and Bakkalbasi N. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11 9 (2005)
5. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. What do we know about the h index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 9 (2007) 1381-1385
6. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. The effectiveness of the peer review process: Inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 47 38 (2008) 7173-7178
7. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. Selecting manuscripts for a high impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of Communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 11 (2008) 1841-1852
8. Cole J.R. A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly work. In: Cronin B., and Atkins H.B. (Eds). The web of knowledge. A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000), Information Today, Medford, NJ, USA 281-300
9. Daniel H.-D. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing 18 (2005) 143-148
10. de Moya-Anegón F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z., Vargas-Quesada B., Corera-Álvarez E., Muñoz-Fernández F., González-Molina A., et al. Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics 73 1 (2007) 53-78
11. Evidence Ltd. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions (2007), Universities UK, London, UK
12. Falagas M.E., Pitsouni E.I., Malietzis G.A., and Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal 22 2 (2008) 338-342
13. Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). Gaga over Google? Scholar in the social sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8).
14. Giles J. Science in the web age: Start your engines. Nature 438 7068 (2005) 554-555
15. Harzing A.-W.K., and van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (2008) 61-73
16. Hirsch J.E. 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 (2005) 16569-16572
17. Jacso P. Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review 29 2 (2005) 208-214
18. Jacso P. The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review 32 2 (2008) 266-283
19. Jacso, P. (2008b). Google Scholar and The Scientist. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www2.hawaii.edu/∼jacso/extra/gs/.
20. Kousha K., and Thelwall M. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 7 (2007) 1055-1065
21. Kousha K., and Thelwall M. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics 74 2 (2008) 273-294
22. Marsh H.W., Jayasinghe U.W., and Bond N.W. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications-reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist 63 3 (2008) 160-168
23. Marx W., and Schier H. CAS kontra Google. Nachrichten aus der Chemie 53 (2005) 1228-1232
24. Meho L.I. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World 20 1 (2007) 32-36
25. Meho L.I., and Rogers Y. 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 (2008) 1711-1726
26. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007a). Fusion approach to citation-based quality assessment. In D. Torres-Salinas & H.F. Moed (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (Vol. 2, pp. 568-581). Madrid, Spain: Spanish Research Council (CSIC).
27. Meho L.I., and Yang K. 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 (2007) 2105-2125
28. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation (2005), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
29. Narin F. Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity (1976), Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
30. Neuhaus C., and Daniel H.-D. Data sources for performing citation analysis-an overview. Journal of Documentation 64 2 (2008) 193-210
31. Noruzi A. Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri 55 4 (2005) 170-180
32. Pauly D., and Stergiou K.I. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 5 (2005) 33-35
33. Perkel J.M. The future of citation analysis. The Scientist 19 20 (2005) 24
34. Pringle J. Trends in the use of ISI citation databases for evaluation. Learned Publishing 21 2 (2008) 85-91
35. Rahm E., and Thor A. Citation analysis of database publications. SIGMOD Record 34 4 (2005) 48-53
36. Saiki R.K., Gelfand D.H., Stoffel S., Scharf S.J., Higuchi R., Horn G.T., et al. Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA-polymerase. Science 239 4839 (1988) 487-491
37. Sanderson M. Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 7 (2008) 1184-1190
38. Thomson Reuters. Using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data (2008), Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA, USA
39. Thor, A., Aumueller, D., & Rahm, E. (2007). Data integration support for mashups. In U. Nambiar & Z. Nie (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Workshop on Information Integration on the Web (pp. 104-109). Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.
40. Thor, A., & Rahm, E. (2007). MOMA-a Mapping-based Object Matching System. In Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (pp. 247-258). Asilomar, CA, USA: www.cidrdb.org.
41. van Raan A.F.J. Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Moed H.F., Glänzel W., and Schmoch U. (Eds). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (2004), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 19-50
42. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2006, 7-9 September). Comparison of citations from ISI, Google, and Google Scholar: seeking Web indicators of impact. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leuven, Belgium.
43. Visser, M. S., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Comparing Web of Science and Scopus on a paper-by-paper basis. In J. Gorraiz & E. Schiebel (Eds.), Excellence and emergence. A new challenge for the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 23-25). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Research Centers (ARC).
44. Vucovich L.A., Baker J.B., and Smith J.T. Analyzing the impact of an author's publications. Journal of the Medical Library Association 96 1 (2008) 63-66