Do non-source items make a difference in the social sciences?

Proceedings of ISSI 2013 - 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2013, Pages 612-625

  Chi, Pei Shan ^a,b  

^a Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ)   (Germany)

^b Berlin School of Library and Information Science   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CITATION INDEX;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84896860927     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Butler, L., Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66(2), pp. 327-343.
2. CHE University Ranking 2010/11-Political science (2010). Retrieved 10. 08. 2010, 2010, from http://ranking.zeit.de/che2010/en/rankingkompakt?esb=28&hstyp=1
3. Chi, Pei-Shan. (2012, October). Bibliometric Characteristics of Political Science Research in Germany., in: Grove, Andrew (ed): ASIST 2012: Information, Interaction, Innovation, Proceedings of the 75th ASIS&T Annual Meeting, Vol. 49.
4. Glänzel, W. (1997). On the possibility and reliability of predictions based on stochastic citation processes. Scientometrics, 40(3), pp. 481-492.
5. Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven Myths in Bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin.
6. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), pp. 193-215.
7. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: Springer.
8. Hix, S. (2004). A global ranking of political science departments. Political Studies Review, 2(3), pp. 293-313.
9. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), pp. 423-435.
10. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), pp. 81-100.
11. Nederhof, A. J., Noyons, E. C. M. (1990). trends in publication and international co-publication activity in the social and behavioral sciences and the humanities(1984-1989). Leiden: report CWTS-90-05.
12. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), pp. 161-169.
13. Schoepelin, U. (1992). Problems of representativity in the social sciences citation index. In P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager (Ed.), Representations of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 177-188). Bielefeld: DSWO Press.
14. van Leeuwen, Th. N. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66 (1), pp. 133-154.