Protocol: Is there agreement or disagreement between the absolute and relative impact indices obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus data?

Marín-García, Juán A.; Alfalla-Luque, Rafaela

doi:10.4995/wpom.v9i1.8989

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases were used to perform the literature review, since they are the most relevant databases in academia. While WoS included 20,000 indexed journals, Scopus included 21,950 [29].…”

Section: Methods Search Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics

Corrales-Garay¹,

Mora-Valentín²,

Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado³

2019

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review some characteristics of the literature that studies the uses and applications of open data for open innovation. Three research questions are proposed about both topics: (1) What journals, conferences and authors have published papers about the use of open data for open innovation? (2) What knowledge areas have been analysed in research on open data for open innovation? and (3) What are the methodological characteristics of the papers on open data for open innovation? To answer the first question, we use a descriptive analysis to identify the relevant journals and authors. To address the second question, we identify the knowledge areas of the studies about open data for open innovation. Finally, we analyse the methodological characteristics of the literature (type of study, analytical techniques, sources of information and geographical area). Our results show that the applications of open data for open innovation are interesting but their multidisciplinary nature makes the context complex and diverse, opening up many future avenues for research. To develop a future research agenda, we propose a theoretical model and some research questions to analyse the open data impact process for open innovation.

show abstract

Section: Methods Search Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately 21.8% (12) of the documents do not indicate any geographic scope. The geographic areas represented are widely scattered, although approximately 53% (29) of those that indicate a geographic area are analyses conducted in Europe. Table 8.…”

Section: Analytical Techniques Author/s Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics

Corrales-Garay¹,

Mora-Valentín²,

Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado³

2019

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is also robust evidence of the growth and mounting impact of non-elite journals (Acharya et al, 2014;Larivière et al, 2014;Hoffman, 2017). However, citations found in perceived elite journals that are included in WoS and Scopus databases still tend to be viewed as positive indicators of scientific research quality (Marin Garcia and Alfalla-Luque, 2018). From this perspective, some researchers question the quality and value of unique GS citations (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

Chapman

Ellinger

2019

IJLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Practical implications 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. Originality/value 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.

show abstract

“…Studies in other fields have also been carried out to analyse the correlations between many indices, such as water resources (Ahmad, Sohail, & Abdel‐Magid, 2017), human resources management (Marin‐Garcia & Alfalla‐Luque, 2018), and computer science (Aliguliyev & Adigozalova, 2018). Two recent papers have focused on the relation between the IF and CiteScore in telecommunication and computer science (Okagbue, Adamu, Bishop, Obasi, & Akinola, 2019; Okagbue, Bishop, Adamu, Opanuga, & Obasi, 2020), both of which recorded a highly positive correlation between the two indicators.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

Ali

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Library and information science (LIS) scholars are increasingly aware of the ranking of LIS journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and Scopus when deciding where to publish, especially scholars who belong to universities that rely on these rankings when making hiring or promotion decisions. However, it is not known which index presents the most appropriate indicator for the LIS discipline and whether Scopus ranking is a possible alternative to the impact factor (IF). This study analysed the 2018 indicators for 58 LIS journals that are included in both Clarivate Analytics' JCR and Elsevier's Scopus databases. The bivariate correlations were calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Then, to examine the interchangeability among the selected indicators, each pair of correlations was compared using Fisher's R to Z transformation formula. The results showed that all bivariate correlations are positive and strong. The highest correlations are between the Total Cites and Eigenfactor Score (ES) (Rs = 0.962, R2 = 0.925) and between the IF and CiteScore (Rs = 0.952, R2 = 0.906). There were 71 combinations with P‐value >0.05, showing that there is no significant difference between the bivariate correlation, indicating interchangeability between those pairs. The best indicator which can be used interchangeably with the IF is the CiteScore. It is evident that, to measure the scientific quality of LIS journals, all stakeholders should take into consideration the correlations among the various indicators. Furthermore, they can rely on the CiteScore as an adequate alternative to the IF.

show abstract

Protocol: Is there agreement or disagreement between the absolute and relative impact indices obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus data?

Cited by 9 publications

References 89 publications

Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics

Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About