Citation searching and bibliometric measures: Resources for ranking and tracking

Kear, Robin; Colbert-Lewis, Danielle

doi:10.5860/crln.72.8.8620

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the citation counts metric, the underlying assumption is that the number of times a publication has been cited by other researchers reflects the influence or impact of a specific publication on subsequent articles within the wider academic literature in a research area. 11 12 Citation counts are widely used to evaluate and compare researchers, departments, and research institutions. 13 However, similar to the number of publications, there is diversity between different databases for citation counts as well the number of publications as described above.…”

Section: Citation Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

show abstract

Section: Citation Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its backward and forward citation feature lists citations in the current selected document, and documents that have cited the current selected document, respectively. 12 …”

Section: Citation Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus lately has shifted from informing library decisions on selection and evaluation of printed materials and electronic resources to supporting the analysis and assessment of research output at individual, departmental, and institutional levels (Gumpenberger et al, 2012), although traditional applications to collection development have continued in the United States (Beck & Manuel, 2008) and Australia (Davis, Wilson, & Horn, 2005 (Adams, 2007;Gibbs & Sergeant, 2009;Pan & Breen, 2011) and specialist bibliometrics events (Gumpenberger et al, 2012), Internet resource guides published in practitioner periodicals (Kear & Colbert-Lewis, 2011;Roemer & Borchadt, 2012), and comprehensive LibGuides produced by individual libraries (e.g., Arizona State University, 2012; Macquarie University, 2012; University of Pittsburgh, 2012), along with articles calling for librarians to assume a more strategic role in research evaluation and its management (Herther, 2009;Joint, 2008;MacColl, 2010). Gumpenberger et al (2012, pp.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometrics and Research Data Management Services: Emerging Trends in Library Support for Research

Corrall¹,

Kennan²,

Afzal³

2013

lib

193

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developments in network technologies, scholarly communication, and national policy are challenging academic libraries to find new ways to engage with research communities in the economic downturn. Librarians are responding with service innovations in areas such as bibliometrics and research data management. Previous surveys have investigated research data support within North America and other research services globally with small samples. An online multiple-choice questionnaire was used to survey bibliometric and data support activities of 140 libraries in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, including current and planned services, target audiences, service constraints, and staff training needs. A majority of respondents offered or planned bibliometrics training, citation reports, and impact calculations but with significant differences between countries. Current levels of engagement in data management were lower than for bibliometrics, but a majority anticipated future involvement, especially in technology assistance, data deposit, and policy development. Initiatives were aimed at multiple constituencies, with university administrators being important clients and partners for bibliometric services. Gaps in knowledge, skills, and confidence were significant constraints, with near-universal support for including bibliometrics and particularly data management in professional education and continuing development programs. The study also found that librarians need a multilayered understanding of the research environment.

show abstract

“…Due to the importance of the work published in academic journals, they are the target of numerous studies, most of them focused on journal bibliometric analysis (Gu & Blackmore, ; Kear & Colbert‐Lewis, ), as this is a key factor in the evaluation of one's own journal, but also of scholars, institutions, and even countries (Hirsch, ; Kulczycki, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Aledo

Gámez

Melodelima

et al. 2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual journal rankings are usually considered a tool for the evaluation of research and researchers. Although they are an objective resource for such evaluation, they also present drawbacks: (a) the uncertainty about the definite position of a target journal in the corresponding annual ranking when selecting a journal, and (b) in spite of the nonsignificant difference in score (for instance, impact factor) between consecutive journals in the ranking, the journals are strictly ranked and eventually placed in different terciles/quartiles, which may have a significant influence in the subsequent evaluation. In this article we present several proposals to obtain an aggregated consensus ranking as an alternative/complementary tool to standardize annual rankings. To illustrate the proposed methodology we use as a case study the Journal Citation Reports, and in particular the category of Computer Science: Artificial Intelligence (CS:AI). In the context of the consensus rankings obtained by the different methods, we discuss the convenience of using one or the other procedure according to the corresponding framework. In particular, our proposals allow us to obtain consensus rankings that avoid crisp frontiers between similarly ranked journals and consider the longitudinal/temporal evolution of the journals.

show abstract

Citation searching and bibliometric measures: Resources for ranking and tracking

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Bibliometrics and Research Data Management Services: Emerging Trends in Library Support for Research

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About