A novel approach for estimating the omitted-citation rate of bibliometric databases with an application to the field of bibliometrics

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 2149-2156

  Franceschini, Fiorenzo ^a   Maisano, Domenico ^a   Mastrogiacomo, Luca ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

bibliometrics; citation analysis

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY LEVEL; BIBLIOMETRIC; BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; ELECTRONIC LINKS; STATISTICAL MODELING;

ESTIMATION; INFORMATION SCIENCE;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

EID: 84883886668     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22898     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abt, H.A., (1992). What fraction of literature references are incorrect? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104 (Mar 1992), 235-236.
2. Adam, D., (2002). Citation analysis: The counting house. Nature, 415 (6873), 726-729.
3. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., &, Larivière, V., (2009). Comparing of science bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (7), 1320-1326.
4. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., &, Wang, L., (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Goole Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7. Retrieved from: http://www.bio-diglib.com/ content/3/1/7 [July 2012].
5. Bar-Ilan, J., (2008). Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74 (2), 257-271.
6. Buchanan, R.A., (2006). Accuracy of cited references: The role of citation databases. College & Research Libraries, 67 (4), 292-303.
7. Franceschini, F., &, Maisano D., (2010). Analysis of the Hirsch index's operational properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 203 (2), 494-504.
8. Franceschini, F., &, Maisano, D., (2011). Influence of database mistakes on journal citation analysis: Remarks on the paper by Franceschini and Maisano, QREI (2010). Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 27 (7), 969-976.
9. Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Maisano, D., &, Mastrogiacomo, L., (2012a). An informetric model for the success-index. To appear on Journal of Informetrics.
10. Franceschini, F., Galetto M., Maisano D., &, Mastrogiacomo L., (2012b). The success-index: An alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual's research output. Scientometrics, 92 (3), 621-641.
11. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., &, Mastrogiacomo, L., (2012c) The effect of database dirty data on h-index calculation. To appear in Scientometrics, DOI 10.1007/s11192-012-0871-x.
12. Garcia-Pérez, M.A., (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.
13. Garfield, E., (1979). Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Gavel Y., &, Iselid, L., (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32 (1), 8-21.
15. Jacsõ, P., (2004). The future of citation indexing: An interview with Eugene Garfield. Online, 28 (Jan./Feb. 2004), 38-40.
16. Jacsõ, P., (2008). Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster. Library Trends, 56 (4), 784-815.
17. Jacsõ, P., (2009). Errors of omission and their implications for computing scientometric measures in evaluating the publishing productivity and impact of countries. Online Information Review, 33, 376-385.
18. Jacsõ, P., (2012). Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: Reflections on Vanclay's criticism. Scientometrics, 92 (2), 325-354.
19. JCGM 200:2008. (2008). VIM-International vocabulary of metrology-Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
20. Kim, W., Choi, B.J, Hong, E.K., Kim, S.K., &, Lee, D., (2003). A taxonomy of dirty data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7 (1), 81-99.
21. Li, J., Burnham, J.F., Lemley, T., &, Britton, R.M., (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3), 196-217.
22. Meho, L.I., &, 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, 2105-2125.
23. Michaleff, Z.A., Costa, L.O., Moseley, A.M., Maher, C.G., Elkins, M.R., Herbert, R.D.,. (2011). CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Physical Therapy, 91 (2), 190-197.
24. Moed, H., (2002). The impact-factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits. Nature, 415 (6873), 731-732.
25. Montgomery, D.C., (2005). Introduction to statistical quality control, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
26. Nature. (2002). Editorial: Errors in citation statistics. Nature, 415 (6868), 101.
27. Scopus Elsevier. (2012a). FAQs. Available at: http://www.info.sciverse. com/scopus/scopus-training/faqs
28. Scopus Elsevier. (2012b). Scopus content coverage. Available at: http://www.scopus.com
29. Sweetland, J.H., (1989). Errors in bibliographic citations: a continuing problem. Library Quarterly, 59 (4), 291-304.
30. Thomson Reuters. (2012a). ISI Web of Knowledge. Available at: http://thomsonreuters.com/
31. Thomson Reuters. (2012b). Journal Citation Reports. Available at: http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR
32. Van Raan,. (2005). For your citations only? Hot topics in bibliometric analysis. Measurement, 3 (1), 50-52.
33. Vieira, E.S., &, Gomes, J.A.N.F., (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81 (2), 587-600.