Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective

Scientometrics

Volumn 92, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 429-441

  Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864287172     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0669-x     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Measuring the institution's footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540-556.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2011). Articles tagged by 'bibliometrics' on Mendeley and CiteULike. Paper presented at the Metrics 2011 Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research.
3. Barjak, F., & Thelwall, M. (2008). A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 628-643.
4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University press.
5. Bogers, T., Bosch, A. V. D. (2008). Recommending scientific articles using citeulike. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys '08), New York, pp. 287-290.
6. Bollen, J., & van de Sompel, H. (2008). Usage impact factor: the effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 136-149.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
8. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large scale hyper textual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7), 107-117.
9. Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060-1072.
10. Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 34-36.
11. Chakrabarti, S., Dom, B., Raghavan, P., Rajagonpalan, S., Gibson, D., Kleinberg, J. M. (1998). Automatic resource compilation by analyzing hyperlink structure and associated text. Paper presented at the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, April 1998.
12. Chakrabarti, S., Joshi, M. M., Punera, K., Pennock, D. M. (2002). The structure of broad topics on the web. http://www2002. org/CDROM/refereed/338.
13. Chakrabarti, S., van den Berg, M., Dom, B. (1999). Focused crawling: a new approach to topic-specific web resource discovery. Paper presented at the 8th International World Wide Web Conference, May 1999.
14. Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377-390.
15. Coleman, A. (2007). Assessing the value of a journal beyond the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1148-1161.
16. COUNTER. (2011a). Counting online usage of networked electronic resources. http://www. projectcounter. org/. Accessed 14 December 2011.
17. COUNTER. (2011b). Register of vendors providing usage reports compliant with release three of the code of practice for journals and databases. http://www. projectcounter. org/r2013/R2013CV_Dec2011. pdf. Accessed 14 December 2011.
18. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.
19. Davis, P. (2011). Gaming the impact factor puts journal in time-out. http://scholarlykitchen. sspnet. org/2011/2010/2017/gaming-the-impact-factor-puts-journal-in-time-out/. Accessed 14 December 2011.
20. De Costa, C. M. (2002). "The contagiousness of childbed fever": a short history of puerperal sepsis and its treatment. The Medical Journal of Australia, 177(11/12), 668-671.
21. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.
22. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471-479.
23. Garfield, E. (2005). The agony and the ecstasy: the history and the meaning of the journal impact factor. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago. USA. http://garfield. library. upenn. edu/papers/jifchicago2005. pdf. Accessed 27 September 2007.
24. Gyongyi, Z., Garcia-Molina, H., Pedersen, J. (2004). Combating web spam with TrustRank. Proceedings of the thirtieth international conference on very large data bases, 30, 576-587.
25. Han, S., Ahn, Y.-Y., Moon, S., Jeong, H. (2006). Collaborative blog spam filtering using adaptive percolation search, WWW2006 Workshop. http://www. blogpulse. com/www2006-workshop/papers/collaborative-blogspam-filtering. pdf. Accessed 5 May 2006.
26. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457.
27. Henning, V., Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley-A last. fm for research? In: IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience (eScience '08), Los Alamitos, pp. 327-328.
28. Huizenga, J. R. (1992). Cold fusion: the scientific fiasco of the century. Rochester: University of Rochester press.
29. Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.
30. Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214.
31. Kleinberg, J. M. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46(5), 604-632.
32. Kousha, K., & Horri, A. (2004). The relationship between scholarly publishing and the counts of academic in links to Iranian university web sites: exploring academic link creation motivations. Journal of Information Management and Scientometrics, 1(2), 13-22.
33. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). 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.
34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: an automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060-2069.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Larson, R. R. (1996). Bibliometrics of the world wide web: an exploratory analysis of the intellectual structure of cyberspace. ASIS 59th annual meeting, Baltimore.
38. Li, X., Thelwall, M., Giustini, D. (2011). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics.
39. Li, X., Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Musgrove, P. B. (2005). National and international university departmental web site interlinking, part 2: link patterns. Scientometrics, 64(2), 187-208.
40. Maxmen, A. (2010). Science networking gets serious. Cell, 141(3), 387-389.
41. Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31(6), 814-830.
42. 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.
43. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
44. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17-27.
45. Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088-1097.
46. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265-277.
47. Newton, I. (1676; 1992 republication). Letter from Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, 5 February 1676. In: J.-P. Maury (Ed.), Newton: Understanding the Cosmos. New York: New Horizons.
48. NISO. (2011). ANSI/NISO Z39. 93-2007 the standardized usage statistics harvesting initiative (SUSHI) protocol. http://www. niso. org/apps/group_public/project/details. php?project_id=2021. Accessed 14 December 2011.
49. Oppenheim, C. (2000). Do patent citations count? In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 405-432). Metford: Information today Inc. ASIS monograph series.
50. Priem, J., Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST 2010), vol 47. pp. 1-4).
51. Priem, J., Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2. 0: toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. http://www. uic. edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index. php/fm/article/viewArticle/2874/2570. First Monday, 15(7), Accessed 7 December 2011.
52. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C. (2011). Altmetrics: a manifesto. http://altmetrics. org/manifesto/. Accessed 14 December 2011.
53. Provos, N., Mavrommatis, P., Rajab, M. A., Monrose, F. (2008). All your iFRAMEs point to us. http://static. googleusercontent. com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research. google. com/en//archive/provos-2008a. pdf. Accessed 13 December 2011.
54. Qiu, J. P., Chen, J. Q., & Wang, Z. (2004). An analysis of back link counts and web impact factors for Chinese university websites. Scientometrics, 60(3), 463-473.
55. RCUK. (2011). Types of impact. http://www. rcuk. ac. uk/documents/impacts/TypologyofResearchImpacts. pdf. Accessed 12 December 2011.
56. Rodríguez, I., & Gairín, J. M. (1997). Valorando el impacto de la información en Internet: AltaVista, el "Citation Index" de la Red (Evaluating the impact of internet information: Altavista, the "Citation Index" of the web). Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 20(2), 175-181.
57. Rousseau, R. (1997). Sitations: an exploratory study. http://www. cindoc. csic. es/cybermetrics/articles/v2001i2001p2001. html. Cybermetrics, 1(1), Accessed 25 July 2006.
58. Shepherd, P. (2011). Journal usage factor: results, recommendations and next steps. http://www. uksg. org/sites/uksg. org/files/JournalUsageFactorReport080711. pdf. Accessed 14 December 2011.
59. Smith, A. G. (1999). A tale of two web spaces; comparing sites using web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 55(5), 577-592.
60. Thelwall, M. (2001). Extracting macroscopic information from web links. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1157-1168.
61. Thelwall, M. (2002). Conceptualizing documentation on the web: an evaluation of different heuristic-based models for counting links between university web sites. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 995-1005.
62. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149-159.
63. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact?: an analysis of powerpoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 805-815.
64. Thomas, O., & Willett, P. (2000). Webometric analysis of departments of librarianship and information science. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 421-428.
65. van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Bibliometrics and internet: some observations and expectations. Scientometrics, 50(1), 59-63.
66. Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics.
67. Vaughan, L., & Hysen, K. (2002). Relationship between links to journal web sites and impact factors. ASLIB Proceedings, 54(6), 356-361.
68. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: what is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313-1322.
69. 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.
70. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.
71. Vaughan, L., & Thelwall, M. (2003). Scholarly use of the web: what are the key inducers of links to journal web sites? Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 29-38.
72. Vaughan, L., & Thelwall, M. (2005). A modeling approach to uncover hyperlink patterns: the case of Canadian universities. Information Processing and Management, 41(2), 347-359.
73. Weller, K., Dröge, E., Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in Twitter: approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. 1st Workshop on Making Sense of Microposts. http://sunsite. informatik. rwth-aachen. de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-2718/paper_2004. pdf. Accessed 16 June 2011.
74. Weller, K., Puschmann, C. (2011). Twitter for scientific communication: how can citations/references be identified and measured? In: Proceedings of the poster session at the Web Science Conference 2011, Koblenz, Germany. http://journal. webscience. org/2500/). Accessed 21 October 2011.
75. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University press.