Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 28. April 2022)
1Araújo, P.C. de ; Gutierres Castanha, R.C. ; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes.
In: Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.1, S.72-101.
(Reviews of Concepts in Knowledge Organization)
Abstract: A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
Themenfeld: Citation indexing
Objekt: Science Citation Index ; Google Scholar ; Web of Science ; Shepard's Citations ; Scopus ; Microsoft Academic ; Crossref ; Dimensions
2Roszkowski, M.: ¬The sociological and ontological dimensions of the knowledge organization domain on Google Scholar citations.
In: Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.2, S.160-172.
Abstract: This study aims to identify the profiles of researchers in the knowledge organization domain on Google Scholar Citations (GSC) and investigate its sociological and ontological dimensions. The sociological dimension is related to GSC users who declared research interests that fall within the scope of the knowledge organization domain. The ontological dimension is based on the study of these concepts. Domain analysis was used as a methodological framework for this study. A search was conducted on GSC using keywords in order to create a list of scholars who declared the knowledge organization domain as one of their research interests in their Google Scholar Profiles (GSPs). Next, the search for GSPs of authors who had published their papers in the Knowledge Organization journal from 2000 to 2019 was conducted. The results showed that there were 379 publicly available GSPs. Analysis of the affiliated institutions showed that the majority of them were based respectively in the USA, Brazil, and then in India. The ontological dimension of the knowledge organization domain on GSC was examined by studying keywords attached to GSPs. The most frequently used keywords were identified and using network analysis five clusters that represented the main areas of interest were extracted.
Objekt: Google Scholar
3Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020.[11.11.2020].
Abstract: Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
Themenfeld: Citation indexing
Objekt: Web of Science ; Google Scholar ; Scopus ; Dimensions ; Semantic Scholar ; Microsoft Academic
4Abad-García, M.-F. ; González-Teruel, A. ; González-Llinares, J.: Effectiveness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar at finding spanish articles in repositories.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622.
Abstract: This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.23975.
Themenfeld: Informetrie ; Elektronisches Publizieren
Objekt: OpenAIRE ; BASE ; Recolecta ; Google Scholar
5Gantman, E.R. ; Dabós, M.P.: Research output and impact of the fields of management, economics, and sociology in Spain and France : an analysis using Google Scholar and Scopus.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1054-1066.
Abstract: Because of a greater coverage of documentary sources in many languages that is greater than that of traditional bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is an ideal tool for examining the social sciences in non-Anglophone countries. We have therefore used it to study the scholarly output and impact of three scientific disciplines, management, economics, and sociology, in Spain and France, comparing some of the results with those retrieved with Scopus. Our findings show that scientific articles are the predominant form of scholarly communication in Google Scholar for our selected fields and countries. In addition, our results indicate that in Google Scholar the vernacular languages of each country are more used than English in all cases, but economics in France. The opposite occurs in Scopus, except for the case of sociology articles in France We also show that books receive on average more citations than other published documents in Google Scholar. Finally, we demonstrate that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24020.
Wissenschaftsfach: Wirtschaftswissenschaften ; Soziologie
Objekt: Google Scholar ; Scopus
Land/Ort: F ; ES
6Abdelkareem, M.A.A.: In terms of publication index, what indicator is the best for researchers indexing, Google Scholar, Scopus, Clarivate or others?.
Abstract: I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database
Themenfeld: Retrievalalgorithmen ; Informetrie
Objekt: Google Scholar ; Scopus ; Clarivate
7Beck, C.: Primo gegen Google Scholar : benutzerfreundliches Discovery 10 Jahre später.
In: ABI-Technik. 38(2018) H.4, S.336-343.
Abstract: Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken stehen seit zehn Jahren vor der Frage, ob sie für die Vermittlung ihrer Bestände Discovery-Systeme oder Internet-Suchmaschinen wie Google Scholar einsetzen sollen. Ein Vergleich des Discovery-Systems Primo des Anbieters Ex Libris mit Google Scholar zeigt, dass Primo eine bessere Usability bietet, indem es summa summarum einfacher zu bedienen ist sowie relevantere und vielfältigere Treffer liefert.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1515/abitech-2018-4007.
Objekt: Primo ; Google Scholar
8Johnson, F. ; Rowley, J. ; Sbaffi, L.: Exploring information interactions in the context of Google.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.824-840.
Abstract: The study sets out to explore the factors that influence the evaluation of information and the judgments made in the process of finding useful information in web search contexts. Based on a diary study of 2 assigned tasks to search on Google and Google Scholar, factor analysis identified the core constructs of content, relevance, scope, and style, as well as informational and system "ease of use" as influencing the judgment that useful information had been found. Differences were found in the participants' evaluation of information across the search tasks on Google and on Google Scholar when identified by the factors related to both content and ease of use. The findings from this study suggest how searchers might critically evaluate information, and the study identifies a relation between the user's involvement in the information interaction and the influences of the perceived system ease of use and information design.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23443/abstract.
Objekt: Google ; Google Scholar
9Wichor, M.B.: Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar.
In: Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104(2016), no.2, S.143-145.
Abstract: Google Scholar is often used to search for medical literature. Numbers of results reported by Google Scholar outperform the numbers reported by traditional databases. How reliable are these numbers? Why are often not all available 1,000 references shown? Methods: For several complex search strategies used in systematic review projects, the number of citations and the total number of versions were calculated. Several search strategies were followed over a two-year period, registering fluctuations in reported search results. Results: Changes in numbers of reported search results varied enormously between search strategies and dates. Theories for calculations of the reported and shown number of hits were not proved. Conclusions: The number of hits reported in Google Scholar is an unreliable measure. Therefore, its repeatability is problematic, at least when equal results are needed.
Objekt: Google Scholar
10López-Cózar, E.D. ; Robinson-García, N.R. ; Torres-Salinas, D.: ¬The Google scholar experiment : how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.446-454.
Abstract: Google Scholar has been well received by the research community. Its promises of free, universal, and easy access to scientific literature coupled with the perception that it covers the social sciences and the humanities better than other traditional multidisciplinary databases have contributed to the quick expansion of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: 2 new bibliometric products that offer citation data at the individual level and at journal level. In this article, we show the results of an experiment undertaken to analyze Google Scholar's capacity to detect citation-counting manipulation. For this, we uploaded 6 documents to an institutional web domain that were authored by a fictitious researcher and referenced all the publications of the members of the EC3 research group at the University of Granada. The detection by Google Scholar of these papers caused an outburst in the number of citations included in the Google Scholar Citations profiles of the authors. We discuss the effects of such an outburst and how it could affect the future development of such products, at both the individual level and the journal level, especially if Google Scholar persists with its lack of transparency.
Objekt: Google scholar
11Haley, M.R.: Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar : How does the new publish or perish option compare?.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1079-1084.
Abstract: Recently, Harzing's Publish or Perish software was updated to include Microsoft Academic Search as a second citation database search option for computing various citation-based metrics. This article explores the new search option by scoring 50 top economics and finance journals and comparing them with the results obtained using the original Google Scholar-based search option. The new database delivers significantly smaller scores for all metrics, but the rank correlations across the two databases for the h-index, g-index, AWCR, and e-index are significantly correlated, especially when the time frame is restricted to more recent years. Comparisons are also made to the Article Influence score from eigenfactor.org and to the RePEc h-index, both of which adjust for journal-level self-citations.
Objekt: Microsoft Academic Search ; Google Scholar
12Ortega, J.L. ; Aguillo, I.F.: Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations : comparative analysis of author profiles.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1149-1156.
Abstract: This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.
Themenfeld: Suchmaschinen ; Informetrie
Objekt: Google Scholar ; Microsoft academic search
13Abrizah, A. ; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2498-2508.
Abstract: Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.
Objekt: Google Books ; Google Scholar
14Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine.
Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
Themenfeld: Suchmaschinen ; Citation indexing
Objekt: PageRank ; Google Scholar
15Ortega, J.L. ; Aguillo, I.F.: Science is all in the eye of the beholder : keyword maps in Google scholar citations.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2370-2377.
Abstract: This paper introduces a keyword map of the labels used by the scientists registered in the Google Scholar Citations (GSC) database from December 2011. In all, 15,000 random queries were formulated to GSC to obtain a list of 26,682 registered users. From this list a network graph of 6,660 labels was built and classified according to the Scopus Subject Area classes. Results display a detailed label map of the most used (>15 times) tags. The structural analysis shows that the core of the network is occupied by computer science-related disciplines that account for the most used and shared labels. This core is surrounded by clusters of disciplines related or close to computing such as Information Sciences, Mathematics, or Bioinformatics. Classical areas such as Chemistry and Physics are marginalized in the graph. It is suggested that GSC would in the future be an accurate source to map Science because it is based on the labels that scientists themselves use to describe their own research activity.
Objekt: Google scholar
16Mingers, J. ; Macri, F. ; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management.
In: Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.2, S.234-241.
Abstract: This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
Inhalt: Vgl.: doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.03.009.
Objekt: h-index ; Web of Science ; Google Scholar
17Kousha, K. ; Thelwall, M. ; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164.
Abstract: Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.
Objekt: Google Books ; Google Scholar ; Scopus
18Weinhold, T. ; Bekavec, B. ; Schneider, G. ; Bauer, L. ; Böller, N.: Wissenschaftliche Suchmaschinen : Übersicht, Technologien, Funktionen und Vergleich.
In: Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski. Heidelberg : Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA, 2011. S.141-177.
Abstract: Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich primär mit der technischen Funktionsweise von wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschinen. Nach einer kurzen Einführung über das Angebot von wissenschaftlichen Informationen im Internet erfolgt zunächst eine Definition des Begriffs der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine. Darauf aufbauend wird dargestellt, welche Stärken und Schwächen wissenschaftliche Suchmaschinen gegenwärtig aufweisen und für welche Einsatzzwecke sie besonders geeignet sind. Anschließend wird die technische Funktionsweise dieser Suchdienste beschrieben, wobei insbesondere auf jene Aspekte eingegangen wird, in denen sich wissenschaftliche von allgemeinen Suchmaschinen unterscheiden. Neben dem internen Aufbau der Suchmaschinen wird in diesem Zusammenhang auch auf die von wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschinen angebotenen Suchoperatoren und Interaktionsmechanismen eingegangen. Wichtig sind in diesem Kontext insbesondere auch der Zugriff und die Referenzierung von Dokumenten. Abschließend wird anhand einer von den Autoren erarbeiteten Kriterienliste ein vergleichender Überblick über am Markt existierende, wissenschaftliche Suchmaschinen gegeben.
Objekt: Google Scholar ; CiteSeer
19Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar?.
Abstract: Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)
Objekt: h-index ; Web of Science ; Scopus ; Google Scholar
20García-Pérez, M.A.: 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.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2070-2085.
Abstract: Hirsch's h index is becoming the standard measure of an individual's research accomplishments. The aggregation of individuals' measures is also the basis for global measures at institutional or national levels. To investigate whether the h index can be reliably computed through alternative sources of citation records, the Web of Science (WoS), PsycINFO and Google Scholar (GS) were used to collect citation records for known publications of four Spanish psychologists. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO included a larger percentage of publication records, whereas GS outperformed WoS and PsycINFO in this respect. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO retrieved a larger number of citations in unique areas of psychology, but it retrieved a smaller number of citations in areas that are close to statistics or the neurosciences, whereas GS retrieved the largest numbers of citations in all cases. Incorrect citations were scarce in Wos (0.3%), more prevalent in PsycINFO (1.1%), and overwhelming in GS (16.5%). All platforms retrieved unique citations, the largest set coming from GS. WoS and PsycINFO cover distinct areas of psychology unevenly, thus applying different penalties on the h index of researches working in different fields. Obtaining fair and accurate h indices required the union of citations retrieved by all three platforms.
Objekt: h-index ; Web of Science ; PsycINFO ; Google Scholar