Bibliometrics 101

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

http://www.eigenfactor.org/

Eigenfactor Metrics

• Eigenfactor • Article Influence

Science Watch

• http://sciencewatch.com/

Free Web Sources Using SCOPUS data

SJR:SCImago Journal Rank

• http://www.scimagojr.com

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

Journal M3trics

• www.journalmetrics.com

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

ORCID

• http://about.orcid.org

ImpactStory

• http://impactstory.org

Microsoft Academic

• http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

Google scholar citations

• http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html

Worldcat identities

• http://www.worldcat.org/identities/

Scholarometer

• http://scholarometer.indiana.edu/

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• elasdabergman@albany.edu• http://www.slideshare.net/librarian68/