Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h-index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia-siren songs and air-raid sirens

Online Information Review

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 462-478

  Jacsó, Péter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Information retrieval; Periodicals; Search engines; User studies

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; CONTENT ANALYSIS; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; H INDICES; IMPACT FACTOR; INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS; INFORMATION SOURCES; PERIODICALS; REPRODUCIBILITIES; RESEARCH GROUPS; SCHOLARLY PUBLICATION; SCHOLARLY WORKS; USER STUDY;

INDEXING (OF INFORMATION); INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SERVICES; LIBRARIES; METADATA; SEARCH ENGINES; SIGNALING;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84863843995     PISSN: 14684527     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/14684521211241503     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008), "Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar", Scientometrics, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 257-71.
2. Bensman, S.J. (2007), "Garfield and the impact factor: The creation, utilization, and validation of a citation measure", Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 93-155.
3. Bensman, S.J. (2011), "The impact factor: Its place in Garfield's thought in science evaluation and in library collection", Scientometrics Online Firste, 31 December.
4. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C. and Daniel, H.D. (2008), "Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results", Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 93-102.
5. Braun, T., Glanzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2006), "A Hirsch-Type index for journals", Scientometrics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 169-73.
6. Butler, L. (2011), "The devil is in the detail: Concerns about Vanclay's analysis of Australian journal rankings", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 693-4.
7. Campanario, J.M. (2011), "Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window", Scientometrics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 189-204.
8. Dong, P., Loh, M. and Mondry, A. (2005), "The 'impact factor' revisited", Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol. 2, Item 7, available at: Www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/7
9. Garfield, E. (1963), "New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing", American Documentation, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 195-201.
10. Garfield, E. (1972), "Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation", Science, No. 178, pp. 471-9.
11. Garfield, E. (1996), "How can impact factors be improved?", British Medical Journal, Vol. 313 No. 7054, pp. 411-3.
12. Garfield, E. (1999), "Journal impact factor: A brief review", Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 161 No. 8, pp. 979-80.
13. Garfield, E. (2005), "The agony and the ecstasy-The history and meaning of the journal impact factor", paper presented at the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, IL, 16 September.
14. Glänzel, W. (2009), "The multi-dimensionality of journal impact", Scientometrics, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 355-74.
15. Gorman, G.E. (2008), "They can't read, but they sure can count-flawed rules of the journal rankings game", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 705-8.
16. Harnad, S. (2008), "Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings", Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 103-7.
17. Jacsó, P. (1997), "Content evaluation of databases", Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 231-67.
18. Jacsó, P. (2005a), "Google Scholar (redux)", Gale Reference Reviews, available at: Www.gale. cengage.com/reference/peter/index.htm (accessed 29 February 2012).
19. Jacsó, P. (2005b), "Google Scholar: The pros and the cons", Online Information Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 208-14.
20. Jacsó, P. (2006), "Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts", Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 297-309.
21. Jacsó, P. (2007a), "How big is a database versus how is a database big", Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 533-6.
22. Jacsó, P. (2007b), "The dimensions of cited reference enhanced database subsets", Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-705.
23. Jacsó, P. (2008a), "Google Scholar revisited", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 102-14.
24. Jacsó, 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.
25. Jacsó, 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.
26. Jacsó, P. (2008d), "The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 437-52.
27. Jacsó, P. (2009a), "Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish software", Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1189-200.
28. Jacsó, P. (2009b), "Google Scholar's ghost authors", Library Journal, Vol. 134 No. 18, pp. 26-7.
29. Jacsó, P. (2010), "Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 175-91.
30. Jacsó, P. (2012a), "Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: Is it too little, too late?", Online Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 126-41.
31. Jacsó, P. (2012b), "The case for Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science for metric-based evaluation: A rejoinder to Vanclay's papers about the impact factor and the h-index", Scientometrics (forthcoming).
32. 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.
33. Moed, H.F. and van Leeuwen, T.N. (1995), "Improving the accuracy of (the) Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factors", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 461-7.
34. Nisonger, T.E. (1994), "A methodological issue concerning the use of Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports impact factor data for journal ranking", Library Collections, Acquisition and Technical Services, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 447-58.
35. Nisonger, T.E. (2004), "The benefits and drawbacks of impact factor for journal collection management in libraries", Serials Librarian, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-75.
36. Nunberg, G. (2009), "Google's Book Search: A disaster for scholars", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 August, available at: Http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/(accessed 15 February 2012).
37. Oppenheim, C. (1996), "Do citations count? Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)", Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 155-61.
38. Pudovkin, A.I. and Garfield, E. (2012), "Rank normalization of impact factors will resolve Vanclay's dilemma with TRIF [comments]", Scientometrics Online Firste, 8 February.
39. Quint, B. (2007), "Changes at Google Scholar: A conversation with Anurag Acharya", Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 77-9.
40. Rousseau, R. (2001), "Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues", Library Trends, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 418-39.
41. Rousseau, R. (2005), "Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators", Scientometrics, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 431-41.
42. Schubert, A. and Glänzel, W. (1983), "Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publications", Scientometrics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
43. Seglen, P.O. (1997), "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research", British Medical Journal, Vol. 314 No. 7079, pp. 497-502.
44. Vanclay, J.K. (2008a), "Gauging the impact of journals", Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 256 No. 4, pp. 507-9.
45. Vanclay, J.K. (2008b), "Ranking forestry journals using the h-index", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 326-34.
46. Vanclay, J.K. (2011), "An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking", Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 265-74.
47. Vanclay, J.K. (2012), "Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?", Scientometrics, available at: Http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.3076.pdf (accessed 4 February 2012).
48. Wagner, A.B. (2009), "Percentile-based journal impact factors: A neglected collection development metric", No. 57, available at: Http://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10477/1318/ Percentile%20Based%20Journal%20Impact%20Factors%20% 28Wagner%29.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 15 February 2012).
49. Wilson, C.S. (1999), "Informetrics", Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 34, pp. 107-247.