Does dirty data affect google scholar citations?

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-4

  Doğan, Güleda ^a   Şencan, İpek ^a   Tonta, Yaşar ^a  

^a HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

dirty data; Google Scholar; Google Scholar citation metrics; Google Scholar citations

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; DIRTY DATA; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATION; GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATION METRIC; INDEX VALUES; KEEP TRACK OF; RESEARCH EVALUATION;

EID: 85015310244     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23739231     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bartol, T. and Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of publishing trends in fiber crops in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Journal of Natural Fibers, 12 (6), 531–541. DOI:10.1080/15440478.2014.972000
2. Butler, D. (November 2004). Science searches shift up a gear as Google starts Scholar engine. Nature, 432, 423. DOI:10.1038/432423a
3. Connor, J. (2011, November 16). Google Scholar citations open to all. Google Scholar blog. http://googlescholar.blogspot.com.tr/2011/11/google-scholar-citations-open-to-all.html
4. Google Scholar. (2016a). About. https://scholar.google.com.tr/intl/tr/scholar/about.html
5. Google Scholar. (2016b). Citations. https://scholar.google.com.tr/intl/tr/scholar/citations.html
6. Harzing, A-W. (2016a, February 6 - updated May 29). Publish or Perish. Harzing.com, Research in International Management. (Blog post). http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
7. Harzing, A-W. (2016b, February 6 - updated April 11). Google Scholar: A new data source for citation analysis. Harzing.com, Research in International Management. (Blog post). http://www.harzing.com/publications/whitepapers/google-scholar-a-new-data-source-for-citation-analysis
8. Harzing, A-W. and Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787–804. DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
9. Harzing, A-W. and Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis? Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8 (1): 61–73.
10. Hassan, S. and Gillani, U. A. (2016). Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07992
11. Hirsch, J.E. (15 November 2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS, 102 (46), 16569–16572.
12. Jacsó, P. (2005) Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29 (2), 208–214.
13. Jacsó, P. (2006a) Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs. Online Information Review, 30 (2), 188–193.
14. Jacsó, P. (2006b) Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30 (3), 297–309.
15. Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: Is it too little, too late? Online Information Review, 36 (1), 126–141. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521211209581
16. Konkiel, S. (2014, July 23). 4 reasons why Google Scholar isn't as great as you think it is. Impactstory blog post. http://blog.impactstory.org/googe-scholar-profiles-fail/
17. López-Cózar, E.D., 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
18. Science and Technology, 65 (3), 446–454. DOI:10.1002/asi.23056
19. Levay, P., Ainsworth, N., Kettle, R. and Morgan, A. (2015). Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Research Synthesis Methods, 7, 34–45. DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1158
20. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M. and López-Cózar, E.D. (2016). The counting house, measuring those who count: Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter. EC3 Working Papers, 21. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4814.4402
21. Moed, H.F., Bar-Ilan, J. and Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 533–551. DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017
22. Ranking Web of Universities. (2015). Top 2000 universities by Google Scholar citations. http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/169
23. Ranking Web of Universities. (2016a). Objectives. http://www.webometrics.info/en/Objetives
24. Ranking Web of Universities. (2016b). Ranking of individuals by country (54 countries), Ranking Web of Researchers. http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/116
25. Rousseau, R., García-Zorita, C. and Sanz-Casado, E. (2013). The h-bubble. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 294–300.
26. URAP. (2016). Genel bilgi (General information). http://tr.urapcenter.org/2010/2010_10.php