bibliometrics 101
DESCRIPTION
Discussion of alternatives to traditional bibliometric sources (many free) including Scopus, eigenfactor, SNIP, SJR, altmetrics, Publish or Perish, Microsoft Academic SearchTRANSCRIPT
Bibliometrics 101
Elaine Lasda BergmanUniversity at Albany
November 9, 2012New York Library Association
ConferenceSaratoga Springs, NY
Save the Trees!
• http://www.slideshare.net/librarian68/
Bibliometrics 101
• Bibliometrics Basics• Introduction to Citation Databases
– WoS, Scopus, GS• Free Web Sources with Bibliometric Indicators• The Future!
Bibliometrics??
• Who cited whom
• Patterns in scholarly research
• Evolution of knowledge
• Measures of scholarly impact, productivity, prestige
Keep In Mind
• Journal Quality ≠ Article Quality
• Citing a work ≠ Agreement with findings
• Self Citations
• Citation Patterns Differ Between Subjects
Sources of Citation Data
Comparisons of WoS, Google Scholar, Scopus
Social Welfare Journals
Figure 1: Patterns of overlap and unique citations (number and percentage of total citations).
Lasda Bergman, EM (2012). Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002
Total Citation Counts
Figure 2. Source types of all citing references.
Source Types of Citing References
Journal Articles83.8%
Reviews11.7%
Miscellaneous4.5%
Scopus
Journal Articles99.7%
Series0.4%
Web of Science
Journal Ar-ticles
59.6%Dissertations,
theses13.5%
Books9.7%
Foreign Language
8.6%
Miscellaneous8.5%
Google Scholar
Figure 6. Distribution of unique citing references for each journal.
Unique Citing References for Each Journal
Other Disciplines
LIS Faculty (Meho, et al.)• Overlap and coverage for LIS faculty
– all three needed• Rankings of small scale and large scale bodies
of LIS research – Scopus for small scale rankings, either for large
scale (GS not used)• Coverage of human computer interaction
research – Scopus preferable (GS not used)____________________________________
Meho, L. I., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2009). Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases-Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2499–2508.Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of scopus and web of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711–1726.Meho, L. I., & 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), 2105–2125.
Earth Science (Mikki)
• Web of Science Preferable to Google Scholar– GS has 85% of WoS– Additional citations in GS “long tail” – minor and
irrelevant– Did not compare Scopus
Mikki, S. (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82(2), 321–331.
Business and Economics(Levine-Clark & Gil)
• Scopus higher Citation Counts than WoS• Non scholarly citations still demonstrate
impact in (GS)• Google Scholar OK to use if WoS/Scopus not
available
Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009). A comparative citation analysis of web of science, scopus, and google scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46.
Medicine (Kulkarni, et al.)
• Variations in coverage• Higher Citation Count in GS and Scopus• No one citation database preferable for all of
medicine
Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092–1096. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307
Publish or Perish Book
Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The Publish or Perish Book: Your Guide to Effective and Responsible Citation Analysis (1st ed.). Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
New Bibliometric Measurements
What’s wrong with the Old Metrics?
Influence of Google Page Rank
Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PageRank-hi-res.png#file created by Felipe Micaroni Lalli
Influence of Google Page Rank
• Eigenvector analysis:– “The probability that a researcher, in documenting his or
her research, goes from a journal to another selecting a random reference in a research article of the first journal. Values obtained after the whole process represent a ‘random research walk’ that starts from a random journal to end in another after following an infinite process of selecting random references in research articles. A random jump factor is added to represent the probability that the researcher chooses a journal by means other than following the references of research articles.” (Gonzales-Pereira, et.al., 2010)
Simply Put:
Some Citations are More Important Than Others
Leyerdoff , L. (forthcoming) “Betweenness Centrality” as an Indicator of the “Interdisciplinarity” of Scientific Journals, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology http://www.leydesdorff.net/betweenness/index.htm
Free Web Sources Using WoS Data
Eigenfactor Metrics
• Eigenfactor • Article Influence
Science Watch
• http://sciencewatch.com/
Free Web Sources Using SCOPUS data
SJR vs Article Influence/JIF
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.4141, p.8. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4141
Quick ComparisonPublication Window
Self Citations Subject Field Normalization
Underlying Database
Effect of extent of Database Coverage
SNIP 3 years Included Yes Scopus Corrects for differences in coverage of subjects
SJR 3 years Maximum 33% Yes Scopus More prestige when database coverage is more extensive
AI 5 years Not Included Yes JCR (WoS) More prestige when database coverage is more extensive
JIF 2 years Included No JCR (WoS) Does not correct for differences in coverage of subjects
Journal Metrics (2011). The evolution of journal assessment, p 11 http://www.journalmetrics.com/documents/Journal_Metrics_Whitepaper.pdf
Free Web Sources Using Google Scholar
Publish or Perish
• http://www.harzing.com/resources.htm#/pop.htm
PoP Interface
PoP Search for Garfield
PoP Metrics
• Papers• Citations• Cites/paper• Cites/author• Papers/Author• Authors/Paper• H index• G index
• Hc Index• HI index• HI, Norm• Hm Index• E-index• AWCR• Per Author AWCR
PoP Search for Garfield
An aside: Why I don’t like PoP for Journal Metrics
CIDS
• http://cids.fc.ul.pt/cids_2_2/• http://
cids.fc.ul.pt/cids_2_2/results.php?acc=238153191123304072&format=html
Other Interesting Bibliometric Web Tools
Microsoft Academic
• http://academic.research.microsoft.com/
Google scholar citations
• http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html
THE FUTURE
Altmetrics
• http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/Hashtag• http://altmetric.com• www.plumanalytics.com• PLoS Article-Level Metrics application• http://sciencecard.org• http://citedin.org• http://readermeter.org
Source: http://impactstory.org/faq
Follow the Discussion!
• Twitter Hashtag #altmetrics• Blog search:
http://www.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en– Search Bibliometrics, Citations, etc.
• Chronicle of Higher Education• Scientometrics
Thank You for coming
• Elaine Lasda Bergman, University at Albany• [email protected]• http://www.slideshare.net/librarian68/