Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences

Scientometrics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 321-331

  Mikki, Susanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Impact measures; Rankings; Similarity measures

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952880045     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
2. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.
3. Belew, R. K. (2005). Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. Journal. Retrieved from http://arxiv. org/abs/cs/0504036.
4. Garfield, E. (1990). How ISI selects journals for coverage-quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, 22, 5-13.
5. GeoRef. The American Geological Institute. (No Date). About GeoRef. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www. agiweb. org/georef/about/.
6. Google Scholar. (No Date). About Google Scholar. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://scholar. google. com/intl/en/scholar/about. html.
7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572.
8. ISI WoS. Thomson Scientific. (No Date). Web of Science. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://scientific. thomsonreuters. com/products/wos/.
9. Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309.
10. 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.
11. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-141.
12. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55, 170-180.
13. Pauly, D., & Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's citation index and Google's scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2005, 33-35.
14. Redner, S. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter, 4(2), 131-134.
15. Scopus. Elsevier. (No Date). Scopus Info-Scopus in Detail-What does it cover? Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://info. scopus. com/detail/what/.
16. Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547-1550.
17. Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, 43(4), 1121-1132.