30,538 research outputs found
Understanding the Impact of Early Citers on Long-Term Scientific Impact
This paper explores an interesting new dimension to the challenging problem
of predicting long-term scientific impact (LTSI) usually measured by the number
of citations accumulated by a paper in the long-term. It is well known that
early citations (within 1-2 years after publication) acquired by a paper
positively affects its LTSI. However, there is no work that investigates if the
set of authors who bring in these early citations to a paper also affect its
LTSI. In this paper, we demonstrate for the first time, the impact of these
authors whom we call early citers (EC) on the LTSI of a paper. Note that this
study of the complex dynamics of EC introduces a brand new paradigm in citation
behavior analysis. Using a massive computer science bibliographic dataset we
identify two distinct categories of EC - we call those authors who have high
overall publication/citation count in the dataset as influential and the rest
of the authors as non-influential. We investigate three characteristic
properties of EC and present an extensive analysis of how each category
correlates with LTSI in terms of these properties. In contrast to popular
perception, we find that influential EC negatively affects LTSI possibly owing
to attention stealing. To motivate this, we present several representative
examples from the dataset. A closer inspection of the collaboration network
reveals that this stealing effect is more profound if an EC is nearer to the
authors of the paper being investigated. As an intuitive use case, we show that
incorporating EC properties in the state-of-the-art supervised citation
prediction models leads to high performance margins. At the closing, we present
an online portal to visualize EC statistics along with the prediction results
for a given query paper
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research
evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention
in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an
in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an
overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used
to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google
Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators
are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and
citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The
second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular
normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with
co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators
for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some
recommendations for future research
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
When faculty members are evaluated, they are judged in part by the impact and quality of their scholarly publications. While all academic institutions look to publication counts and venues as well as the subjective opinions of peers, many hiring, tenure, and promotion committees also rely on citation analysis to obtain a more objective assessment of an author’s work. Consequently, faculty members try to identify as many citations to their published works as possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of their publication impact on the scholarly and professional communities. The Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) citation databases, which are widely used as a starting point if not the only source for locating citations, have several limitations that may leave gaps in the coverage of citations to an author’s work. This paper presents a case study comparing citations found in Scopus and Google Scholar with those found in Web of Science (the portal used to search the three ISI citation databases) for items published by two Library and Information Science full-time faculty members. In addition, the paper presents a brief overview of a prototype system called CiteSearch, which analyzes combined data from multiple citation databases to produce citation-based quality evaluation measures
Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of explorative networks based on author keywords and hashtags
Twitter accounts have already been used in many scientometric studies, but
the meaningfulness of the data for societal impact measurements in research
evaluation has been questioned. Earlier research focused on social media counts
and neglected the interactive nature of the data. We explore a new network
approach based on Twitter data in which we compare author keywords to hashtags
as indicators of topics. We analyze the topics of tweeted publications and
compare them with the topics of all publications (tweeted and not tweeted). Our
exploratory study is based on a comprehensive publication set of climate change
research. We are interested in whether Twitter data are able to reveal topics
of public discussions which can be separated from research-focused topics. We
find that the most tweeted topics regarding climate change research focus on
the consequences of climate change for humans. Twitter users are interested in
climate change publications which forecast effects of a changing climate on the
environment and to adaptation, mitigation and management issues rather than in
the methodology of climate-change research and causes of climate change. Our
results indicate that publications using scientific jargon are less likely to
be tweeted than publications using more general keywords. Twitter networks seem
to be able to visualize public discussions about specific topics.Comment: 31 pages, 1 table, and 7 figure
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics
A framework for the measurement and prediction of an individual scientist's performance
Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used to evaluate the
performance of scientists. However, traditional indicators do not much rely on
the analysis of the processes intended to measure and the practical goals of
the measurement. In this study, I propose a simple framework to measure and
predict an individual researcher's scientific performance that takes into
account the main regularities of publication and citation processes and the
requirements of practical tasks. Statistical properties of the new indicator -
a scientist's personal impact rate - are illustrated by its application to a
sample of Estonian researchers.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figure
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.Cite as:
Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p1
- …