Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 370-379

  Lasda Bergman, Elaine M ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Google Scholar; Scopus; Social work; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867588295     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Thyer, Bruce A., Developing Discipline-Specific Knowledge for Social Work: Is It Possible?. Council on Social Work EducationCouncil on Social Work Education, Winter 2002.
2. Ibid., 110.
3. Strothmann, M., Use of Non-Social Work Journals in Social Work Research: Results of a Citation Analysis. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 29:4 (2010), 244–266.
4. Berman, Y., Eaglstein, A.S., The Knowledge Base of Social Work: A Citation Analysis. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 46:9 (1994), 225–230.
5. Monit Cheung, Kam-fong, Interdisciplinary Relationships Between Social Work and Other Disciplines: A Citation Study. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 26(3), 1990, 23.
6. Pierce, Sydney J., Disciplinary Work and Interdisciplinary Areas: Sociology and Bibliometrics. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics, 1990, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, Calif, 46–58.
7. Holden, Gary, Rosenberg, Gary, Barker, Kathleen, Bibliometrics in Social Work. 2006, Psychology Press.
8. Strothmann, “Use of Non-Social Work Journals in Social Work Research.”.
9. Green, Robert G., Secret, Mary, Publishing by Social Work Scholars in Social Work and Non-Social Work Journals. Social Work Research 20:1 (March 1996), 31–42.
10. Moed, H.F., Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Information Science and Knowledge Management v. 9, 2005, Springer, Dordrecht ; [Great Britain], 44–45.
11. Allen Furr, L., The Relative Influence of Social Work Journals: Impact Factors Vs. Core Influence. Journal of Social Work Education 31:1 (1995), 38–45.
12. Harzing, Anne-Wil, The Publish or Perish Book: Your Guide to Effective and Responsible Citation Analysis, 1st ed., 2010, Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 220–221.
13. Meho, L.I., Rogers, Y., 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 59:11 (2008), 1711–1726.
14. Meho, L.I., Sugimoto, C.R., 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 60:12 (2009), 2499–2508.
15. Meho, L.I., Yang, K., 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 (2007), 2105–2125.
16. Meho and Sugimoto, “Assessing the Scholarly Impact of Information Studies.”.
17. Meho and Rogers, “Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and H-index of Human–Computer Interaction Researchers.”.
18. Mikki, S., Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics 82:2 (2010), 321–331.
19. Ibid., 330.
20. Levine-Clark, M., Gil, E.L., A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship 14:1 (2009), 32–46.
21. Kulkarni, Abhaya V., et al. Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 302:10 (September 9, 2009), 1092–1096.
22. Haddow, G., Genoni, P., Citation Analysis and Peer Ranking of Australian Social Science Journals. Scientometrics 85:2 (2010), 471–487.
23. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., Comparing Alternatives to the Web of Science for Coverage of the Social Sciences' Literature. Journal of Informetrics 1:2 (2007), 161–169.
24. Bornmann, L., et al. 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 (2009), 27–35.
25. Bar-Ilan, J., Citations to the ‘Introduction to Informetrics’ Indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82:3 (2010), 495–506.
26. Archambault, É., et al. Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:7 (2009), 1320–1326.
27. Mikki, Susanne, Google Scholar Compared to Web of Science: A Literature Review. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1(1), March 26, 2009 https://noril.uib.no/index.php/noril/article/view/10.
28. Sellers, S.L., et al. Evaluation of Social Work Journal Quality: Citation Versus Reputation Approaches. Journal of Social Work Education 40:1 (2004), 143–160.
29. Caputo Cnaan, Ram A., Senior Faculty Perceptions of Social Work Journals. Journal of Social Work Education 30:2 (Spring 1994), 185–199.
30. Sellers et al., “Evaluation of Social Work Journal Quality,” 148.
31. Web of Science Field Tags (Articles and Conference Proceedings). ISI Web of Science Help, 2009 http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOK45/help/WOK/hft_wos.html.
32. Elsevier B.V., “What Does It Cover? | SciVerse”, n.d. http://www.info.sciverse.com/Scopus/Scopus-in-detail/facts.
33. Elsevier B.V., “CSAB | SciVerse”, n.d. http://www.info.sciverse.com/Scopus/csab.
34. Thomson Reuters, “Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process | Science”, n.d. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/.
35. Cnaan, “Senior Faculty Perceptions of Social Work Journals.”.
36. Kulkarni et al., “Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals”; Levine-Clark and Gil, “A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.”.
37. Rosvall, Martin, Bergstrom, Carl T., An Information-Theoretic Framework for Resolving Community Structure in Complex Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(104), 2007, 7327–7331.
38. Harzing, The Publish or Perish Book.
39. Bornmann, Lutz, Daniel, Hans-Dieter, What Do Citation Counts Measure? A Review of Studies on Citing Behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), January 18, 2008, 70.
40. Ibid., 66–67.
41. Harzing, The Publish or Perish Book, 221.
42. Furr, “The Relative Influence of Social Work Journals.”.
43. Ball, R., Tunger, D., Science Indicators Revisited — Science Citation Index Versus Scopus: A Bibliometric Comparison of Both Citation Databases. Information Services and Use 26:4 (2006), 293–301.
44. Thelwall, Mike, Kousha, Kayvan, 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 (March 1, 2008), 805–815.
45. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., Rezaie, S., Using the Web for Research Evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact Indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4:1 (2010), 124–135.
46. De Bellis, Nicola, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. 2009, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Md.
47. Beel, Joeran, Gipp, Bela, Academic Search Engine Spam and Google Scholar's Resilience Against It. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(3), December 2010 http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3336451.0013.305.
48. Moed, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation.