l*******a
发帖数: 438 | 1 For those who are concerned about differences in citation numbers among
different databases, Nature has published two short correspondence on the
topic. Maybe they will replace laoda's classical explanation that many of us
have copied and used.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036c.ht
Citations: not all measures are equal
Scott L. Hooper
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036c
The scientific community needs to be aware of the limitations of Google
Scholar's personalized citation reports. Clicking on 'My citations' on the
site may offer a nice ego boost, but I would not recommend using the reports
for decisions that could affect careers.
Google Scholar overestimates the number of citable articles (in comparison
with formal citation services such as Scopus and Thomson Reuters) because of
the automated way it collects data, including 'grey' literature such as
theses. For my own publications, for example, Google Scholar yields 38% more
citations and boosts the h-index by 26%.
A citation report for one of my articles revealed that Google Scholar had
counted as independent citations four web pages on which authors had posted
copies of their articles, plus one listing only an article title; and one to
a paper in which my name didn't appear. Personalized searches by my
colleagues exposed comparable errors.
These drawbacks might also allow unscrupulous individuals to use such
tactics to inflate their citation reports, particularly as independent
vetting is blocked by password access.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036d.ht
Citations: results differ by database
Carles Alcaraz & Sofia Morais
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036d
Databases such as Thomson Reuters' ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Google
Scholar and Microsoft's Academic Search allow authors to compute their own
citation statistics, but they yield inconsistent results.
The discrepancies come from differences in information sources and in
temporal citation coverage. Web of Science and Scopus, for example, provide
citation data only for their indexed journals, giving different coverage for
the number of journals, precursor articles and fields of academic research
— often with regional biases (such as European versus US sources). Google
Scholar includes all journals (indexed, free access and popular science),
conference proceedings, books, theses, reports, local press and electronic
sources — all subject to variable degrees of control and scrutiny.
A debate is crucial on how these tracking tools compare and should be used,
given that their indiscriminate usage has potentially negative implications
for academic careers. | i********y
发帖数: 760 | | a***n
发帖数: 3951 | |
|
