1 / 10

Aims

Google Scholar and Google Web/URL Citation: some evidence of scholarly patterns on the Web. Aims. Correlation between ISI citation counts and either Google Scholar or Google Web/URL citation counts for articles in OA journals in eight disciplines

rollin
Download Presentation

Aims

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Google Scholar and Google Web/URL Citation: some evidence of scholarly patterns on the Web Aims • Correlation between ISI citation counts and either Google Scholar or Google Web/URL citation counts for articles in OA journals in eight disciplines • Overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citations • Characteristics of non-overlapping Google Citations with ISI • Classification of web sources targeting articles

  2. Data collection Well known and used formal scholarly citations. High impact journals Also formal web-extracted citations. But not much information about its quality Formal, informal and navigational “citations”.

  3. Results 1-Conventional citations correlate with Web-extracted citations (quantitative evidence) • ISI citations correlate with Google Scholar citation (journal/article level) • Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines • ISI citations correlate with Google Web/URL citations(but weaker than above) • “Article title” OR URL -site: journal URL address • Higher correlations between ISI and Google unique Web/URL citations than Google total Web/URL citations (counting one site per site) Sample 1650 articles in 108 OA journals in eight disciplines: biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, education

  4. Result 2- 57% Sharing citations between ISI and GS (validating previous results) • 57% (2,387) of ISI citations were duplicated (overlapped) in Google Scholar results OR • 43% Google Scholar citations were unique (covered in another study) • This overlap percentage was relatively higher in biology (66%), physics (62%) and computing (57%), and considerably lower in chemistry (33%). 882 articles in 39 OA journals in 4 disciplines= biology, chemistry, physics, computing.

  5. Result 3- Double growth in GS citations than ISI (validating GS) • The percentage increase for ISI citations was about 12% and Google Scholar 22% (October 2005 to January 2006) in four science disciplines. • This increase was considerably higher in computing (13% vs. 26%), biology, and physics; and it was significantly lower for chemistry (31% Vs. 18%) 882 articles in 39 OA journals in 4 disciplines= biology, chemistry, physics, computing.

  6. Result 4- Type of GS unique citations differ in disciplines E-prints (48%) Conference (43%) Journal (88%) Journal (68%)

  7. Result 5- Accessibility of GS unique citations • 70% of GS were full-text sources • Google Scholar has a wider coverage of Open Access (OA) web documents and non-journal documents more useful for citation tracking across full text documents

  8. Result 6- Classification of reasonsfor creating Web Citations in Science Sample of 1577 Google unique Web/URL citations in 64 open access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing

  9. Reasons for Creating Google Unique Web/URL Citations in the four science disciplines

  10. Conclusion • We can use Web based citation patterns for impact assessment of journals especially when ISI citations are not accessible and in social science disciplines with less ISI journal coverage. • Disciplinary differences should be considered in the results.

More Related