Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Bibliometrics 101


Published on

Discussion of alternatives to traditional bibliometric sources (many free) including Scopus, eigenfactor, SNIP, SJR, altmetrics, Publish or Perish, Microsoft Academic Search

Published in: Education
  • I like this service ⇒ ⇐ from Academic Writers. I don't have enough time write it by myself.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Sie können Hilfe bekommen bei ⇒ ⇐. Erfolg und Grüße!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Bibliometrics 101

  1. 1. Bibliometrics 101 Elaine Lasda Bergman University at Albany November 9, 2012 New York Library Association Conference Saratoga Springs, NY
  2. 2. Save the Trees!•
  3. 3. Bibliometrics 101• Bibliometrics Basics• Introduction to Citation Databases – WoS, Scopus, GS• Free Web Sources with Bibliometric Indicators• The Future!
  4. 4. Bibliometrics??• Who cited whom• Patterns in scholarly research• Evolution of knowledge• Measures of scholarly impact, productivity, prestige
  5. 5. Keep In Mind• Journal Quality ≠ Article Quality• Citing a work ≠ Agreement with findings• Self Citations• Citation Patterns Differ Between Subjects
  6. 6. Sources of Citation Data
  7. 7. Comparisons of WoS, Google Scholar, Scopus
  8. 8. Social Welfare Journals
  9. 9. Total Citation Counts 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 GoogleScholar, The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
  10. 10. Source Types of Citing References Series Miscellan eous Miscellaneous 0.4% 8.5% 4.5% Foreign Language 8.6% Reviews 11.7% Books 9.7% Journal Dissertations, Articles Journal theses 59.6% Articles Journal 13.5% 99.7% Articles 83.8%Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Figure 2. Source types of all citing references.
  11. 11. Unique Citing References for Each JournalFigure 6. Distribution of unique citing references for each journal.
  12. 12. Other Disciplines
  13. 13. 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 ofScience. 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 ofscopus 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 Googlescholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. 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 availableLevine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009). A comparative citation analysis of web of science, scopus, and googlescholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46.
  16. 16. Medicine (Kulkarni, et al.)• Variations in coverage• Higher Citation Count in GS and Scopus• No one citation database preferable for all of medicineKulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and GoogleScholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA: The Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 302(10), 1092–1096. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307
  17. 17. Publish or Perish BookHarzing, A.-W. (2010). The Publish or Perish Book: Your Guide to Effective and Responsible Citation Analysis (1st ed.).Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
  18. 18. New Bibliometric Measurements
  19. 19. What’s wrong with the Old Metrics?
  20. 20. Influence of Google Page RankSource: by Felipe Micaroni Lalli
  21. 21. 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,, 2010)
  22. 22. Simply Put:
  23. 23. Leyerdoff , L. (forthcoming) “Betweenness Centrality” as an Indicator of the “Interdisciplinarity” of Scientific Journals, Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology
  24. 24. Free Web Sources Using WoS Data
  25. 25. Eigenfactor
  26. 26. Eigenfactor Metrics• Eigenfactor• Article Influence
  27. 27. Science Watch•
  28. 28. Free Web Sources Using SCOPUS data
  29. 29. SJR:SCImago Journal Rank•
  30. 30. SJR vs Article Influence/JIFGonzález-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. arXivpreprint arXiv:0912.4141, p.8. Retrieved from
  31. 31. Journal M3trics•
  32. 32. Quick Comparison Publication Self Citations Subject Field Underlying Effect of extent Window Normalization Database 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 subjectsJournal Metrics (2011). The evolution of journal assessment, p 11
  33. 33. Free Web SourcesUsing Google Scholar
  34. 34. Publish or Perish•
  35. 35. PoP Interface
  36. 36. PoP Search for Garfield
  37. 37. PoP Metrics• Papers • Hc Index• Citations • HI index• Cites/paper • HI, Norm• Cites/author • Hm Index• Papers/Author • E-index• Authors/Paper • AWCR• H index • Per Author AWCR• G index
  38. 38. PoP Search for Garfield
  39. 39. An aside:Why I don’t like PoP for Journal Metrics
  40. 40. CIDS•• 238153191123304072&format=html
  41. 41. Other InterestingBibliometric Web Tools
  42. 42. ORCID•
  43. 43. ImpactStory•
  44. 44. Microsoft Academic•
  45. 45. Google scholar citations•
  46. 46. Worldcat identities•
  47. 47. Scholarometer•
  48. 48. THE FUTURE
  49. 49. Altmetrics•••• PLoS Article-Level Metrics application••• Source:
  50. 50. Follow the Discussion!• Twitter Hashtag #altmetrics• Blog search: – Search Bibliometrics, Citations, etc.• Chronicle of Higher Education• Scientometrics
  51. 51. Thank You for coming• Elaine Lasda Bergman, University at Albany••