Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 699-708

  Bartneck, Christoph ^a   Hu, Jun ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Chi; G index; H index; History; Quality

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; BIBLIOMETRICS; CHI; G INDICES; H INDICES; RANDOM SAMPLE; SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT; SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS;

HISTORY; HUMAN ENGINEERING; IMAGE QUALITY; INDEXING (OF INFORMATION); PAPER;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84892458237     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1518701.1518810     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Greenberg, S. and Buxton, B. Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). ACM, City, 2008.
2. Barkhuus, L. and Rode, J. From Mice to Men-24 Years of Evaluation in CHI. Twenty-FiFth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - Alt. CHI 2007.
3. Wulff, W. and Mahling, D. E. An assessment of HC1: issues and implications. SIGCHI Bulletin, 22, 1 (1990), 80-87.
4. Newman, W. A preliminary analysis of the products of HCI research, using pro forma abstracts. ACM, City, 1994.
5. Garfield, E. The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1 (January 4, 2006 2006), 90-93.
6. Lotka, A. J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 12 (1926), 317-323.
7. Bartneck, C. What Is Good? - A Comparison Between The Quality Criteria Used In Design And Science. ACM, City, 2008.
8. Bartneck, C. and Rauterberg, M. HCI Reality - An Unreal Tournament. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65, 8 (2007), 737-743.
9. Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 21 (June 5, 2002 2002), 2786- 2790.
10. Lawrence, P. A. The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 6929 (2003), 259-261.
11. Horrobin, D. F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 10 (March 9, 1990 1990), 1438- 1441.
12. Enserink, M. SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? Science, 293, 5538 (September bl, 2001 2001). 2187-2188.
13. Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles. submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 2 (1982), 187-195.
14. Holden, G., Rosenberg, G. and Barker, K. Bibliometrics in social work. Haworth Social Work Practice Press, Binghamton, 2005.
15. Moed, H. F. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, 2005.
16. Garfield, E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 4 (1979), 359-375.
17. MacRoberts, M. and MacRoberts, B. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 3 (1996), 435-444.
18. Lawrence, P. A. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 1 (June 03, 2008 2008), 9-11.
19. Universities UK The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Universities UK, 2007.".
20. Katz, J. and Hicks, D. Desktop scientometrics. Scientometrics, 38, 1 (1997), 141-153.
21. Pauly, D. and Stergiou, K. I. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2005(2005), 33-35.
22. Jacso, P. As we may search-comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation- based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89, 9 (2005), 1537-1547.
23. Jacso, P. Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs. Online Information Review-, 30, 2 (2006), 188-193.
24. Jacso, P. Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30, 3 (2006), 297-309.
25. Harzing, A. W. K. and van der Wal, R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics In Science And Environmental Politics, 8 (2008), 61-73.
26. Meho, L. I. and 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.
27. Hirsch, J. E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 46 (November 15, 2005 2005), 16569-16572.
28. Egghe, L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 1 (2006), 131-152.
29. Marzal, A. and Vidal, E. Computation of normalized edit distance and applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15, 9 (1993), 926-932.
30. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects. New York, 2006.
31. Orr, J. M, Sackett, P. R. and Dubois, C. L. Z. Outlier Detection And Treatment In I/O Psychology: A Survey Of Researcher Beliefs And An Empirical Illustration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 3 (1991), 473-486.
32. Green, R. G. The Paradox of Faculty Publications in Professional Journals. Haworth Press, City, 2005.
33. Gold, V. SIGCHI Announces Best of CHI 2008 Award Winners: Conference Honors Research that Addresses Problems of Accessibility, Homelessness, Healthcare, Emerging Markets. ACM. C'ily, 2008.
34. Lawrence, S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature, 411, 6837 (2001), 521 -521.