Search results

This paper aims to understand the nature of citations and metrics in the larger system of knowledge production involving universities, funding agencies, publishers, and indexing and data analytic services.

First, the normative and social constructivist views of citations are reviewed to be understood as co-existing conditions. Second, metrics are examined through the processes of commensuration by tracing the meanings of metrics embedded in various kinds of documents and contexts. Third, the steering effects of citations and metrics on knowledge production are discussed. Finally, the conclusion addresses questions pertaining to the validity and legitimacy of citations as data and their implications for knowledge production and the conception of information.

The normative view of citations is understood as an ideal speech situation; the social constructivist view of citation is recognised in the system of knowledge production where citing motivations are influenced by epistemic, social and political factors. When organisational performances are prioritised and generate system imperatives, motives of competition become dominant in shaping citing behaviour, which can deviate from the norms and values in the academic lifeworld. As a result, citations and metrics become a non-linguistic steering medium rather than evidence of research quality and impact.

This paper contributes to the understanding of the nature of citations and metrics and their implications for the conception of information and knowledge production.

This study aims to assess the validity of citation metrics based on the disciplinary representative survey.

The present project compared citation rankings for individual scientists with expert judgments collected through a survey of 818 Russian sociologists. The Russian Index of Science Citation was used to construct the general population of 3,689 Russian sociologists, to whom the survey was sent by email. The regression analyses of bibliometric indicators and peer review scores for 723 names of scholars mentioned in the survey have been undertaken.

Findings suggest that scientometric indicators predict with significant accuracy the names of the most influential sociologists and those scholars who are not mentioned while they are less relevant for prediction names which received moderate attention in the survey.

This study contributes to the research on the validity of citation metrics by focusing on scientometric indicators, not limited to traditional metrics but including non-standard publication metrics and indicators of potential metric abuse. Besides, the study presents the national bibliometric data source that is especially important for non-Western higher education systems, less presented in the Web of Science or Scopus.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future.

Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors.

In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources.

The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research.

This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of highly cited papers of Library and information science (LIS).

This study is quantitative research that was conducted using scientometrics and altmetrics indicators. The research sample consists of LIS classic papers. The papers contain highly cited papers of LIS that are introduced by Google Scholar. The research data have been gathered from Google Scholar, Scopus and Plum Analytics Categories. The data analysis has been done by Excel and SPSS applications.

The data indicate that among the highly cited articles of LIS, the highest score regarding the usage, captures, mentions and social media and the most abundance of citations belong to “Citation advantage of open access articles” and “Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems.” Based on the results of Spearman statistical tests, there is a positive significant correlation between Google Scholar Citations and all studied indicators. However, only the correlation between Google Scholar Citations with capture metrics (p-value = 0.047) and citation metrics (p-value = 0.0001) was statistically significant.

Altmetrics indicators can be used as complement traditional indicators of Scientometrics to study the impact of papers. Therefore, the Altmetrics knowledge of LIS researchers and experts and practicing new studies in this field will be very important.

This paper analyzes citations from the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using Google Scholar in April and May, 2013.

This study assesses the success of the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using citation analysis. Four citation metrics are used. The four citation metrics are: (1) total citations since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (2) citations per author since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (3) citations per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013, and (4) citations per author per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013.

The top 20 authors for each citation metric, the top 20 faculties for each citation metric, and the top 20 doctoral programs for each citation metric are determined. Furthermore, the top 20 articles are determined using two citation metrics and the H-index for Advances in Management Accounting is computed.

Potential doctoral students, current doctoral students, “new” Ph.D.s with an interest in management accounting, current management accounting faculty, department chairs, deans, other administrators, journal editors, and journal publishers will find these results informative.

Citations have been used as a common basis to measure the academic accomplishments of scientific books. However, traditional citation analysis ignored content mining and without consideration of citation equivalence, which may lead to the decline of evaluation reliability. Hence, this paper aims to integrate multi-level citation information to conduct multi-dimensional analysis.

In this paper, books’ academic impacts were measured by integrating multi-level citation resources, including books’ citation frequencies and citation-related contents. Specifically, firstly, books’ citation frequencies were counted as the frequency-level metric. Secondly, content-level metrics were detected from multi-dimensional citation contents based on finer-grained mining, including topic extraction on the metadata and citation classification on the citation contexts. Finally, differential metric weighting methods were compared with integrate the multi-level metrics and computing books’ academic impacts.

The experimental results indicate that the integration of multiple citation resources is necessary, as it can significantly improve the comprehensiveness of the evaluation results. Meanwhile, compared with the type differences of books, disciplinary differences need more attention when evaluating the academic impacts of books.

Academic impact assessment of books via integrating multi-level citation information can provide more detailed evaluation information and cover shortcomings of methods based on single citation data. Moreover, the method proposed in this paper is publication independent, which can be used to measure other publications besides books.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.