Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2147-2164

  Kousha, Kayvan ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^b   Rezaie, Somayeh ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN   (Iran)

^c SHAHID BEHESHTI UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE SOURCE; CITATION IMPACT; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE; RESEARCH EVALUATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

RESEARCH;

EID: 80054685852     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21608     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., &, Larivière, V., (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (7), 1320-1326.
2. 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. (Pubitemid 46345454)
3. Bar-Ilan, J., (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74 (2), 257-271.
4. Bar-Ilan, J., (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82 (3), 495-506.
5. Bence, V., &, Oppenheim, C., (2004). The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. Journal of Information Science, 30 (4), 347-368.
6. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2006). Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review-A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68 (3), 427-440. (Pubitemid 44127033)
7. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64 (1), 45-80.
8. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2009). 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, 3 (1), 27-35.
9. Brody, T., Harnad, S., &, Carr, L., (2006). Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology, 57 (8), 1060-1072. (Pubitemid 43989212)
10. Butler, L., &, Visser, M., (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66 (2), 327-343. (Pubitemid 43099443)
11. Chung, Y., (1995). Characteristics of references in international classification systems literature. Library Quarterly, 65 (2), 200-215.
12. Cronin, B., Snyder, H., &, Atkins, H., (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53 (3), 263-273.
13. Franceschet, M., (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83 (1), 243-258.
14. Garfield, E., (1996, October). Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation. Paper presented at the G7 Consensus Conference on the Theory and Practice of Research Assessment, Capri, Italy.
15. Gavel, Y., &, Iselid, L., (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32 (1), 8-21. (Pubitemid 351332189)
16. Giménez-Toledo, E., &, Román, A., (2008, September). Peer review and in-depth interviews with publishers as a means of assessing quality of research monographs. Poster presented at the 10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Vienna (Austria). Retrieved from
17. Glänzel, W., &, Schoepflin, U., (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management, 35 (1), 31-44.
18. Harzing, A.-W., &, van der Wal, R., (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 41-46.
19. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2009a). Report on the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the Research Excellence Framework. Retrieved from
20. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2009b). The Research Excellence Framework: A brief guide to the proposals. Retrieved from
21. Hicks, D., (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44 (2), 193-215.
22. Hicks, D., (2004). The four literatures of social science. In, H. Moed, (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 476-496). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
23. Holmes, A., &, 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, 6 (2). Retrieved from
24. Huang, M., &, Chang, Y., (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11), 1819-1828.
25. Jacsõ, P., (2005a). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29 (2), 208-214. (Pubitemid 40626395)
26. Jacsõ, P., (2005b). 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 from (Pubitemid 43170109)
27. Korevaar, J.C., &, Moed, H.F., (1996). Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 37 (1), 117-130. (Pubitemid 126449900)
28. Kousha, K., &, Thelwall, M., (2007a). 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), 1055-1065. (Pubitemid 46826219)
29. Kousha, K., &, Thelwall, M., (2007b). The Web impact of open-access social science research. Library and Information Science Research, 29 (4), 495-507.
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. Kousha, K., &, Thelwall, M., (2009). Google Book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (8), 1537-1549.
32. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., &, Rezaie, S., (2010). Using the web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (1), 124-135.
33. Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M., &, Oppenheim, C., (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 554-563.
34. Li, X., Thelwall, M., Musgrove, P., &, Wilkinson, D., (2003). The relationship between the links/Web Impact Factors of computer science departments in UK and their RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) ranking in 2001. Scientometrics, 57 (2), 239-255. (Pubitemid 39109285)
35. MacRoberts, M., &, MacRoberts, B., (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36 (3), 435-444. (Pubitemid 126449893)
36. MacRoberts, M.H., &, MacRoberts, B.R., (2010). Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (1), 1-13.
37. Mahdi, S., D'Este, P., &, Neely, A., (2008). Citation counts: Are they good predictors of RAE scores ? London, England: Advanced Institute of Management Research. Retrieved from
38. Meho, L.I., &, Yang, K., (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2105-2125. (Pubitemid 350229712)
39. Mingers, J., &, Lipitakis, E., (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85 (2), 613-625.
40. Moed, H., (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.
41. Moed, H., Luwel, M., &, Nederhof, A., (2001). Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50 (3), 498-520. (Pubitemid 41399627)
42. Nederhof, A., (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 81-100.
43. Nederhof, A., &, van Raan, A., (1993). A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy, 22 (4), 353-368.
44. Norris, M., &, Oppenheim, C., (2003). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation, 59 (6), 709-730. (Pubitemid 37424599)
45. Norris, M., &, Oppenheim, C., (2010). Peer review and the h-index: Two studies. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 221-232.
46. 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, 51 (1), 18-27.
47. Oppenheim, C., (1996). Do citations count? Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Serials, 9 (2), 151-161.
48. 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, 53 (5), 477-487.
49. Oppenheim, C., &, Summers, M., (2008). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise, Part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music). Information Research, 13 (2). Retrieved from
50. RAE 2008 Guidance on Submissions. (2005). Retrieved from
51. RAE 2008 Panels (n.d.). Retrieved from
52. 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. (Pubitemid 128416436)
53. Scopus Content Coverage Guide. (2010). Retrieved from
54. Seng, L.B., &, Willett, P., (1995). The citedness of publications by United Kingdom library schools. Journal of Information Science, 21 (1), 68-71.
55. Shaw, D., &, Vaughan, L., (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74 (2), 317-330.
56. Small, H., &, Crane, D., (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: An examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, 1 (5-6), 445-461.
57. Smith, A., &, Eysenck, M., (2002, June). The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology [Unpublished Tech. Rep.]. University of London. Retrieved from
58. Smith, A.G., (2008). Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 74 (2), 309-316.
59. Tang, R., (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College & Research Libraries, 69 (4), 356-369.
60. Taylor, J., (2011). The assessment of research quality: Peer review or metrics ? British Journal of Management, 22 (2), 202-217.
61. Taylor, J., &, Walker, I., (2009). Peer assessment of research: How many publications per staff ? Lancaster University Management School, Working Paper No. 2009/035. Retrieved from
62. Thompson, J., (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52, 121-136.
63. van Raan, A.F.J., (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62 (1), 133-143. (Pubitemid 40397597)
64. van Raan, A.F.J., (2006). Comparison of Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67 (3), 491-502.
65. Vaughan, L., &, Shaw, D., (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (10), 1075-1087. (Pubitemid 41205800)
66. 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.
67. Weingart, P., (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences ? Scientometrics, 62 (1), 117-131. (Pubitemid 40397596)
68. White, H.D., Boell, S.K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C.S., &, Cole, F.T., (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (6), 1083-1096.