Using google scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with web of science data

Research Evaluation

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 264-270

  Prins, A A M ^a   Costas, Rodrigo ^b   Van Leeuwen, Thed N ^b   Wouters, Paul F ^b  

^a Research Management   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Data reliability; Google scholar; Humanities; Research evaluation; Social sciences; Web of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011631616     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: 14715449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv049     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abrizah, A. and Thelwall, M. (2014) ‘Can the Impact of Non-Western Academic Books be Measured? An Investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65/12: 2498–508, DOI: 10.1002/asi.23145.
2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A. and Di Costa, F. (2014) ‘Inefficiency in Selecting Products for Submission to National Research Exercises’, Scientometrics, 98: 2069–86.
3. Aguillo, I. F. (2012) ‘Is Google Scholar Useful for Bibliometrics? A Webometric Analysis’, Scientometrics, 91/2: 343–51.
4. Archambault, É. and Larivière, V. (2010) ‘The Limits of Bibliometrics for the Analysis of the Social Sciences and Humanities Literature’, in World Social Science Report, International Social Science Council, World Social Sciences Report: Knowledge Divides, UNESCO, París, pp. 251–54.
5. Bakalbassi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. and Wang, L. (2006) ‘Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science’, Biomedical Research Libraries, 3: 7. DOI: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7.
6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010) ‘Citations to the “Introduction to Informetrics” Indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar’, Scientometrics, 82/3: 495–506.
7. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A. and Daniel, H. D. (2009) ‘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: 27–35.
8. De Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A. and Dodou, D. (2014) ‘The Expansion of Google Scholar Versus Web of Science: A Longitudinal Study’, Scientometrics, 98, 1547–65, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2.
9. Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E., Robinson-García, N. and Torres-Salinas, D. (2012) ‘Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: Simple, Easy and Tempting’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638, EC3 Working Papers 6: 29 May, 2012.
10. Delgado Lopez-C ozar, E., Robinson-García, N. and Torres-Salinas, D. (2014) ‘The Google Scholar Experiment: How to Index False Papers and Manipulate Bibliometric Indicators’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65/3: 446–54.
11. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A. and Pappas, G. (2008) ‘Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses’, The FASEB Journal, 22/2: 338–42.
12. Franceschet, M. (2010) ‘A Comparison of Bibliometric Indicators for Computer Science Scholars and Journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar’, Scientometrics, 83/1: 243–58.
13. Harzing, A. W. and Van der Wal, R. (2007) ‘Google Scholar: The Democratization of Citation Analysis’, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8/1: 61–73.
14. Harzing, A. and Van der Wal, R. (2008) ‘Google Scholar as a New Source for Citation Analysis’, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8: 61–73.
15. Harzing, A. W. (2014) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Google Scholar Coverage between 2012 and 2013’, Scientometrics, 98/1: 565–75.
16. Hicks, D. (2005) ‘The Four Literatures of Social Science’, in Moed H. F., Glanzel W. and Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 473–96.
17. Jacso, P. (2005) ‘Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons’, Online Information Review, 29/2: 208–14.
18. Jacso, P. (2006) ‘Deflated, Inflated and Phantom Citation Counts’, Online Information Review, 30/3: 297–309.
19. Jacso, P. (2010) ‘Metadata Mega Mess in Google Scholar’, Online Information Review, 34/1: 175–91.
20. KNAW (2005) Judging Research on its’ Merits. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
21. KNAW (2012) Quality Indicators in the Humanities. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
22. KNAW (2013) Towards a Framework for the Quality Assessment of Social Science Research. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
23. Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M. (2008) ‘Sources of Google Scholar Citations Outside the Citation Index: A Comparison between Four Science Disciplines’, Scientometrics, 74/2: 273–94.
24. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. and Rezaie, S. (2011) ‘Assessing the Citation Impact of Books: The Role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62/11: 2147–64.
25. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I. and Busse, J. W. (2009) ‘Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 302/10: 1092–6.
26. Larivière, V. and Macaluso, B. (2011) ‘Improving the Coverage of Social Science and Humanities Researchers’ Output: The Case of the Érudit Journal Platform’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62/12: 2437–42.
27. Meho, L. I. and 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, 58/13: 2105–25.
28. Mingers, J. and Lipitakis, E. (2010) ‘Counting the Citations: A Comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the Field of Business and Management’, Scientometrics, 85/2: 613–25.
29. Nederhof, A.J. (2006) ‘Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review’, Scientometrics, 66/1: 81–100.
30. Nederhof, A. J., van Leeuwen, T. N. and van Raan, A. F. (2010) ‘Highly Cited Non-journal Publications in Political Science, Economics and Psychology: A First Exploration’, Scientometrics, 83/2: 363–74.
31. Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllon, J. M., Martín-Martín, A. and Lopez-c ozar, E. D. (2015) ‘About the Size of Google Scholar: Playing the Numbers’, Scientometrics, 104/3: 931–949.
32. SCImago. (2007). ‘SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank’, accessed 10 September and 10 October 2012.
33. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M. (2012) ‘Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information’, PLoS One, 7/5: e35869.
34. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R. and Delgado-Lopez-C ozar, E. (2009) ‘Google Scholar Como Herramienta Para La Evaluacion Científica’, El Profesional de la Informacion, 18/5: 501–10, DOI: 10.3145/ epi.2009.sep.03.
35. Van Leeuwen, T.N. (2013) ‘Bibliometric Research Evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Problematic Relationship?’, Bibliometrie – Praxis & Forschung.
36. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Wijk, E. and Wouters, P. F. (2015) ‘Bibliometric Analysis of Output and Impact Based on CRIS Data: A Case Study on the Registered Output of a Dutch University. Scientometrics, 1061: 1–16.
37. Van Noorden, R. (2014) ‘Google Scholar Pioneer on Search Engine’s Future’, Nature News and Comment, 1–5, DOI: 10.1038/nature.2014.16269.
38. Wouters, P. and Costas, R. (2012) ‘Users, Narcissism and Control – Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century’, in Van Berchum M. and Russell K. (eds)
39. Waltman, L, Van Eck, N. J. and Wouters, P (2013) ‘Counting Publications and Citations: Is More Always Better? Journal of Informetrics, 7/3: 635–41.