Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Kiduk yang citesearch
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Kiduk yang citesearch

909
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
909
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • These are old figures. also total counts seem suspect.
    old figures:
    table 2: 3019 for WoS, 2564 for Scopus are total counts, not unique counts
    table 8: 5259 total, 5018 unique for all document type (where does 5,680 come from?)
  • N=5307
    A+B+C=1104 (20.8%)
    D+E+F=1642 (30.9%)
    A+D=438
    C+E=721
    B+F=1587
  • Transcript

    • 1. CiteSearch: Multi-faceted Fusion Approach to Citation Analysis Kiduk Yang and Lokman Meho Web Information Discovery Integrated Tool Laboratory Keimyung University, Korea American University of Beirut, Lebanon October 27, 2010
    • 2. 2 CiteSearch: What, Why, & How  Goal • Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications  Motivation • Lack of comprehensive citation database • Limitations of conventional citation analysis  One-dimensional assessment  Misleading evaluation  Approach • Multi-faceted, Fusion-based Citation Analysis  Combine data from multiple citation databases  Assess quality using various quality evaluation measures
    • 3. 3 CiteSearch Study: Overview  Objectives • Investigate current citation analysis environment • Test the viability of CiteSearch system  Method • Search citation databases and compare the results  Setup • Study sample  Publications of 15 SLIS faculty members (approx. 1,100 publications) • Databases used  Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science • Citation sources  Journals and conference papers in 1996-2005
    • 4. 44 Citation Databases Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Breadth of coverage 36M records 8,700 titles Journals (240 open access) & conference papers 28M records 15,000 titles Journals (500 open access) & conference papers 500M records Unknown 30+ document types Coverage years A&HCI: 1975- SCI: 1900- SSCI: 1956- 1996-present (with cited references) 1966-present (without cited references) Unknown Subject area All All All • Data collection - WoS: 100 hours - Scopus: 200 hours - GS: over 3,000 hours Data as of 2006
    • 5. 5 Scopus and WoS: Citation Count  Scopus vs. WoS • 14.0% (278) more citations by Scopus  More comprehensive coverage by Scopus (15,000 vs. 8,700 periodicals)  Scopus + WoS • Scopus increases WoS citations by 35% (710) • WoS increases Scopus citations by 19.0% (432) • Relatively low overlap (58%) and high uniqueness (42%) Scopus (2,301) Web of Science (2,023) 58% (1,591) 26% (710) 16% (432) Scopus ∪ WoS (2,733)
    • 6. 6 Impact of Scopus By Research Area - varies significantly between research areas- varies significantly between research areas
    • 7. 7 Impact of Scopus on Faculty Members Relative Ranking Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those faculty members that appear in the middle of the rankings
    • 8. 8 Scopus + WoS: Citation Count By Document Type Scopus (359) WoS (229) 18% (92) 54% (267) Scopus ∪ WoS (496) 28% (137) Conference Papers Only
    • 9. 9 Scopus + WoS: Summary of Results  Coverage • Varies greatly between research areas  Increase in citations ranges from 5% to 99% by combining results from both databases • Scopus has a much better coverage of conference proceedings  Overlap: 18%  Scopus only: 54%  WoS only: 28%  Ranking by citation count • Relative ranking of faculty members changes significantly for those in the middle
    • 10. 10 Google Scholar Citations By Document Type
    • 11. 11 Citations By Language
    • 12. 12 Impact of GS By Research Area
    • 13. 13 Impact of GS on Faculty Members Relative Ranking GS does not significantly alter the rankings of faculty members
    • 14. 14 GS vs. Scopus∪WoS  GS increases WoS∪Scopus citations by 93% (2,552)  Scopus∪WoS increases GS citations by 26% (1,104)  GS identifies 53% (or 1,448) more citations than WoS∪Scopus  GS has much better coverage of conference proceedings • (1,849 by GS vs. 496 by Scopus∪WoS)  GS has over twice as many unique citations as Scopus∪WoS • (2,552 vs. 1,104, respectively) Google Scholar (4,181) Scopus∪WoS (2,733) 31% (1,629) 48% (2,552) 21% (1,104) GS ∪ Scopus∪WoS (5,285)
    • 15. 15 CiteSearch Study: GS + Scopus + WoS Google Scholar (4203) 4.3% (230) 18.3% (970) 48.3% (2561) GS ∪ Scopus ∪ WoS (5307) Scopus (2308) WoS (2025) 11.7% (617) 8.2% (435) 3.8% (204) 5.3% (282)
    • 16. 16 GS + Scopus∪WoS: Summary of Results  Coverage • Varies greatly between research areas  23% to 144% increase by combining GS & Scopus∪WoS  5% to 98% increase by combining Scopus & WoS • GS has strong coverage in CS & IS  HCI, IR, computational linguistics, social informatics • Scopus∪WoS has stronger coverage in LS  Bibliometrics, collection development, information policy • GS provides significantly better coverage of non-English materials  GS (7%); Scopus (1%); WoS (1%)  Ranking • No significant changes in relative ranking of faculty members
    • 17. 17 Findings  Scopus, WoS, and GS complement rather than replace each other  GS can be useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through Scopus and WoS  GS can be very useful for citation searching purposes; however, it is not conducive for large-scale comparative citation analyses  Scopus significantly alters the relative citation ranking of scholars as measured by Web of Science. GS does not
    • 18. 18 Conclusions  Multiple sources of citations should be used to generate accurate citation counts and rankings • Citation databases complement one another • Small overlap between sources may significantly influence relative ranking  Multi-faceted citation analysis is needed • citation coverage varies by research area, document type, language  CiteSearch can greatly facilitate citation analysis • Enormous effort is required to  Refine search strategy  Parse search results  Eliminate noise (duplicate citations)  Extract & normalize citation metadata
    • 19. 19 CiteSearch System: Work-in-Progress  Federated Citation Search • To compile comprehensive & usable citation data 1. Query multiple citation databases 2. Filter out noise • e.g., invalid, duplicate citations 1. Extract & normalize metadata • bibliographical metadata (e.g., title, author, year, source, etc.) • citation metadata (e.g., doctype, subject, language, etc.)  Multi-faceted Citation Analysis • To produce multi-faceted quality/impact assessment measures that  account for variance in citation quality (e.g., Weighted citation counts, CiteRank)  consider various facets of evaluation metric (e.g., Document type, language)  accommodate diffent aspects of quality assessment (e.g., H-Index, Mentor-Index) 1. Compute citation-based quality scores (CQS) for each publication 2. Compute CQS for authors, schools, publishers using publication CQS 3. Compute CQS for each publication weighted by author/school/publisher scores 4. Compute CQS for authors, schools, publishers using weighted publication CQS 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until convergence
    • 20. 20 CiteSearch System: Architecture
    • 21. 21 End
    • 22. 22
    • 23. 23