Search results

Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from.

In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies.

The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed.

The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued.

Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.

The main purpose of this study is to assess the citation advantage for self‐archived Open Access (OA) agriculture research against its non‐OA counterparts.

At the article level, the paper compared the citation counts of self‐archived research with non‐OA articles based upon a sample of 400 research articles from ISI‐indexed (ISI, Institute for Scientific Information) agriculture journals in 2005. At the journal level the paper compared impact factors (IFs) of OA against non‐OA agriculture journals from 2005 to 2007 as reported by the ISI Journal Citation Reports. The paper also sought evidence of citation impact based on a random sample of 100 OA and 100 non‐OA publications from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in 2005. It used both ISI and Scopus databases for citation counting and also Google and Google Scholar for locating the self‐archived articles published in the non‐OA journals.

The results showed that there is an obvious citation advantage for self‐archived agriculture articles as compared to non‐OA articles. Out of a random sample of 400 articles published in non‐OA agriculture journals, about 14 per cent were OA and had a median citation count of four whereas the median for non‐OA articles was two. However, at the journal level the average IF for OA agriculture journals from 2005 to 2007 was 0.29, considerably lower than the average IF for non‐OA journals (0.65). Finally it found that FAO publications which were freely accessible online tended to attract more citations than non‐OA publications in the same year and had a mean citation count of 1.73 whereas the mean for non‐OA publications was 0.28.

Self‐archived agriculture research articles tended to attract higher citations than their non‐OA counterparts. This knowledge of the citation impact of OA agricultural research gives a better understanding about the potential effect of self‐archiving on the citation impact.

Bibliometric analysis of research reports in continuing medical education that were evaluated for their methodological quality is used to assess the relation between methodological rigour and citation frequency. There is a positive, significant but low correlation between rigour and citation, and evidence that rigorous work will be cited independent of where the article is published. There is no strong evidence that study design is correlated with subsequent citation. Of the five methodological standards used in the bibliography, outcome measure is the best predictor of citation frequency. In certain cases citation measures might be used as guides to or indicators of methodologically rigorous research reports.

The purpose of this paper is to relate the problems identified about scholarly journal publishing in Malaysia to establish motivation for the system development; to describe the design of MyCite, a Malaysian citation indexing system and to highlight the added value to journals and articles indexed through the generation of bibliometrics performance reports.

The system uses a rapid prototyping method, modeling the functions identified in the Web of Science databases and Scopus, as the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia requires the system to be ready within a year, mainly to help improve the quality, accessibility and performance of Malaysian scholarly journals.

The paper shows the relational tables and module functions in MyCite; highlights the value added to bibliographic data through performance reports of authors, journals, institutions, country and bibliographical control of Malaysian journals; and provides performance tables of top authors, rank list of 75 journals by yearly impact factor, and other bibliometric indices.

The paper highlight the problems in gaining access to full contents of journals, authors' adoption of variant names, and the vast variations in referencing style adopted by publishers, which may result in inaccurate counting and lost citations.

The strength of MyCite is in its reference editor module, which is a programme that segments article references into manageable chunks that helps speed up the data preparation for citation counting. MyCite improves the availability and visibility of Malaysian journals, enriches national research content, and provides better knowledge of national research outputs funded by universities and research institutions.

The term ‘obsolescence’ occurs frequently in the literature of librarianship and information science. In numerous papers we are told how most published literature becomes obsolete within a measurable time, and that an item receives half the uses it will ever receive (‘half‐life’) in a few years. ‘Obsolescence’ is however very rarely defined, and its validity, interest, and practical value are often assumed rather than explained. Before reviewing studies on ‘obsolescence’, therefore, it is necessary to look at the concept and to identify the reasons why it should be of interest.

The Journal of Intellectual Capital (JIC) celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2020. Therefore, the present study aims to provide a general overview of the history and key trends in this journal during 2000–2019.

Two types of citation and textual data during a 20-year journal period were retrieved from the Scopus database. The citation structures and contents were explored based on a combination of bibliometric analysis, altmetric analysis and text mining. The journal themes and trends of their changes were analyzed through citation bursts, mapping and topic modeling. To make a better comparison, the text mining process for the topic modeling of the IC field was performed in addition to the topic modeling of JIC.

Bibliometric analysis indicated that JIC has experienced a remarkable growth in terms of the number of publications and citations over the last 20 years. The results indicated that JIC plays a significant role among IC researchers. Additionally, a large number of researchers, institutes and countries have made contributions to this journal and cited its research papers. Altmetric analysis showed that JIC has been shared in different social media such as Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, Citeulike, news and blogs. Text mining abstract of JIC articles indicated that “measurement,” “financial performance” and “IC reporting” have the relative prevalence with increasing trends over the past 20 years. In addition, “research trends” and “national and international studies” had a stable trend with low thematic share.

The findings have important implications for the JIC editorial team in order to make informed decisions about the further development of JIC as well as for IC researchers and practitioners to make more valuable contributions to the journal.

Using bibliometric analysis, altmetric analysis and text mining, this study provided a systematic and comprehensive analysis of JIC. The simultaneous use of these methods provides an interesting, unique and suitable capacity to analyze the journals by considering their various aspects.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.

The methodology and findings are presented of an empirical study comparing local citation patterns with the holdings lists of a number of sources of journal articles. These sources were the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) and the BL inside service, library holdings, ProQuest Direct, SearchBank, EiText and a linking system including both the Geobase database and the BLDSC. The value of local citation figures is discussed, as is the concept of a “core” of journal titles, from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Using these figures to represent the local use of journal articles, the coverage of the document sources was found to vary widely. Unsurprisingly, the BLDSC was found to offer the widest coverage. Newer, electronic systems generally fared less well, but may offer other advantages.

This paper examines the leading publication trends including the extent and impact of intellectual capital research in the Journal of Intellectual Capital (JIC) over a two-decade period (2000–2020). The bibliometric analysis offers the description of publications trends such as key authors, articles, cited references, institutions and countries— in other words the extent and impact in the field. This paper also presents the knowledge structure (including conceptual, intellectual and social structures) of JIC, that is prominent themes, co-citation and bibliographic networks.

In order to achieve research objectives, we collected the bibliographic information of the articles published in JIC for the period 2000 to 2020 from the Scopus database on 11.04.2020. The bibliographic information of 737 documents were analysed using to open source analysis tool, that is bibliometrics package in r software and VOSviewer. These tools were used to create the graphical visualization of bibliographic data on basis of co-occurrence, co-citation and bibliographic coupling.

The results show that the journal is progressing in terms of publication quantity and reputation in the field. To date, 737 documents have been published in JIC, which includes 659 research articles, eight editorials, seven notes and 63 review papers. This paper also portrays the author impact list in terms of most impactful articles published in JIC. Country-wise Italy, Australia, and USA exert maximum influence on JIC scholarship.

Bibliographic analysis offers a comprehensive understanding of past trends and presents the future direction of a journal.

Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis.

There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years.

Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment.

To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion.

Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality.

This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.