Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases

IForest

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 101-107

  Chirici, Gherardo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MOLISE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Google Scholar; Scientific Evaluation; SCIMAGO; SCOPUS; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863918635     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19717458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3832/ifor0613-005     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abramo G, D'Angelo C, Viel F (2011). The fieldstandardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy. Scientometrics 88 (2): 599-615. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0406-x
2. Abramo G, D'Angelo C (2011a). Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 87 (3): 499-514. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7
3. Abramo G, D'Angelo C (2011b). National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics 86 (2): 347-364. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0297-2
4. Aguillo IF (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8
5. ANVUR (2011). Criteri e parametri di valutazione dei candidati e dei commissari dell'abilitazione scientifica nazionale. Consiglio Direttivo Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca, 22 giugno 2011, Rome, Italy.
6. Aksnes DW, Taxt RE (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation 13 (1): 33-41. doi: 10.3152/147154404781776563
7. Bar-Ilan J (2007). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 (2): 257-271. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y
8. Bar-Ilan J (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82 (3): 495-506. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9
9. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3: 7. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
10. Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11 (9). doi: 10.1045/september2005-bauer
11. CUN (2011). Proposta su "criteri e parametri per la valutazione" ai fini di cui all'Art 16 comma 3 lettere a) e h) della Legge 30 Dicembre 2010, n. 240. Consiglio Universitario Nazionale, prot. 786 del 09/06/2011, Rome, Italy.
12. Darario C, Moed HF (2011). Is Italian science declining? Research Policy 40 (10): 1380-1392. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.06.013
13. Garcia-Perez MA (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google scholar: a case study for the computation of h-indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (10): 2070-2085. doi: 10.1002/asi.21372
14. Garfield E (1955). Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122 (3159): 108-111. doi: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108
15. Garfield E (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 (4060): 471-479. doi: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471
16. Glänzel W (1996). The needs for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics 35 (2): 167-176. doi: 10.1007/ BF02018475 González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-
17. Anegón F (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4: 379-391. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
18. Gurney T, Horlings E, van den Besselaar P (2011). Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators. Scientometrics 91 (2): 435-449. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0589-1
19. Hirsch JE (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102 (46): 16569-16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.05076 55102
20. Kostoff RN (1996). Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics 36 (3): 281-292. doi: 10.1007/BF02129595
21. Jacsó P (2005). As we may searc Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science 89: 1537-1547.
22. Jacsó P (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review 30 (3): 297-309. doi: 10.1108/1468452061067 5816
23. stcentury. A review. Journal of Informetrics 2 (1): 1-52. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001
24. Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM (2010). Citation analysis: comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3): 196-217. doi: 10.1080/15424065. 2010.505518
25. Lu K, Wolfram D (2010). Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987-2008. Journal of Informetrics 4: 591-601. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.008
26. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36 (3): 435-444. doi: 10.1007/BF02129604
27. Martin BR (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36 (3): 343-362. doi: 10.1007/BF02129 599
28. Meho L, 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. doi: 10.1002/asi.20677
29. Mikki S (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics 82 (2): 321-331. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6
30. MIUR (2011). Cerca Università. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Rome, Italy. [online] URL: http://cercauniversita.-cineca.it
31. Nagpaul PS (1995). Quasi-quantitative measures of research performance: an assessment of construct validity and reliability. Scientometrics 33 (2): 169-185. doi: 10.1007/BF02020567
32. Narin F (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA, pp. 456.
33. Scimago (2007). SJ Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Web site. [online] URL: http://www. scimagojr.com
34. Seglen PO (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 69 (3): 224-229. doi: 10.3109/17453679809000920
35. So CYK (1998). Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: effects of research specialty size and individual prominence. Scientometrics 41 (3): 325-333. doi: 10.1007/BF02459049
36. Spearman C (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15: 72-101. doi: 10.2307/1412159
37. Van Raan AFJ (2000). The Pandora's box of citation analysis: measuring scientific excellence'the last evil? In: "The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield" (Cronin B, Atkins HB eds). Information Today, Medford, NJ, USA, pp. 301-319.
38. VTR (2006). Italian Triennial Research Evaluatio VTR 2001-2003. Risultati delle valutazioni dei Panel di Area. Web Site. [online] URL: http://vtr2006.cineca.it
39. Wilcoxon F (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83. doi: 10.2307/3001968