Savvy searching pragmatic issues in calculating and comparing the quantity and quality of research through rating and ranking of researchers based on peer reviews and bibliometric indicators from web of science, scopus and google scholar

Online Information Review

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 972-982

  Jacsò, Péter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer review; Quality indicators; Research

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; DATABASE SEARCHES; DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH; EXPERT JUDGMENT; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; INDICATOR VALUES; PEER REVIEW; PRAGMATIC ISSUES; QUALITY INDICATORS; SAVVY SEARCHING; WEB OF SCIENCE;

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; SEARCH ENGINES;

RESEARCH;

EID: 78650405458     PISSN: 14684527     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/14684521011099432     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adkins, D. and Budd, J. (2006), "Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty", Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 374-89.
2. Bence, V. and Oppenheim, C. (2004), "The influence of peer review on the Research Assessment Exercise", Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 347-68.
3. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. and Daniel, H.-D. (2008a), "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, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 830-7.
4. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G. and Ledin, A. (2008b), "Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data", Research Evaluation, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 149-56.
5. Butler, L. (2008), "Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework", Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP), Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
6. Costas, R. and Bordons, M. (2007), "The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
7. Cronin, B. and Meho, L. (2006), "Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 1275-8.
8. Harnad, S. (2008), "Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings", Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 103-7.
9. 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, Vol. 102 No. 46, pp. 16569-72.
10. Holmes, A. and Oppenheim, C. (2001), "Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management", Information Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, available at: http://informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper103. html (accessed 15 September 2010).
11. Jacso, P. (2006), "Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts", Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 297-309.
12. Jacso, P. ((2008a), "Live Search Academic", Péter's Digital Reference Shelf, April, Gale, available at: www.gale.cengage.com/ servlet/HTMLFileServlet?imprint=9999®ion=7&fileName=reference/ archive/200804/academic.html (accessed 15 September 2010).
13. Jacsò, P. (2008b), "Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster", Library Trends, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 784-815.
14. Jacso, P. (2008c), "The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference enhanced databases", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 266-83.
15. Jacso, P. (2008d), "The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 437-52.
16. Jacso, P. (2008e), "The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 524-35.
17. Jacso, P. (2008f), "The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Web of Science", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 673-88.
18. Jacso, P. (2010), "Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 175-91.
19. Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2010), "Ranking of library and information science researchers: comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 554-63.
20. Meho, L. I. and 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, Vol. 59 No. 11, pp. 1711-26.
21. Meho, L. I. and Sugimoto, C. R. (2009), "Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: a tale of two citation databases - Scopus and Web of Science", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 2499-508.
22. Meho, L. I. and 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, Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 2105-25.
23. Moed, H. F. (2008), "UK Research Assessment Exercises: informed judgments on research quality or quantity?", Scientometrics, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 153-61.
24. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2003), "Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V: archaeology and the 2001 RAE", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 709-30.
25. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2007), "Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-9.
26. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2010), "Peer review and the h-index: two studies", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-32.
27. Oppenheim, C. (1995), "The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise ratings for British Library and Information Science university departments", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
28. Oppenheim, C. (1996), "Do citations count? Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ", Serials, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 155-61.
29. Oppenheim, C. (1997), "The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 477-87.
30. 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, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 297-301.
31. Oppenheim, C. and Stuart, D. (2004), "Is there a correlation between investment in an academic library and a higher education institution's ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise?", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 156-65.
32. Randić, M. (2009), "Citations versus limitations of citations: beyond Hirsch index", Scientometrics, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 809-18.
33. Sanderson, M. (2008), "Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 1184-90.
34. Seng, L. B. and Willett, P. (1995), "The citedness of publications by United Kingdom library schools", Journal of Information Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 68-71.
35. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006), "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups", Scientometrics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 491-502.