scholarly journals In - text citation function s of self ­ - citations: Implications for research evaluation practice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dangzhi Zhao ◽  
Alicia Cappello
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Practice ◽  
Citation Function ◽  
Individual Self

Self-citations have long been noted as a problem in citation analysis and are often excluded from the analyses based on the notion that self-citations may be included for egoistic or self-serving reasons. The present study, however, found that self-citations are less likely to function as nonessential citations than foreign citations, suggesting that self-citations should not be discounted in citation analysis, and should in fact be given more weight than foreign citations in weighted citation analysis. This study fills a gap in research on self-citations by examining the function of individual self-citation occurrences inciting articles as compared to foreign citations.

Intellectual structure of information science 2011–2020: an author co-citation analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dangzhi Zhao ◽  
Andreas Strotmann
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Information Behavior ◽  
Intellectual Structure ◽  
Knowledge Domain ◽  
Science Field ◽  
Content Type ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time Periods

PurposeThis study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011–2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006–2010 through 2011–2015 to 2016–2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field.Design/methodology/approachThe well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011–2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor.FindingsThe two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011–2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016–2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016–2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011–2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016–2020.Originality/valueAuthor co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview

2008 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Neuhaus ◽  
Hans‐Dieter Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Data Source

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation‐enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation‐enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus.FindingsThe study suggests that citation‐enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis.Originality/valueThe paper presents a valuable overview of new citation‐enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

Research Governance and the Role of Evaluation

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 583-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Molas-Gallart
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Evaluation Practice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
A Minor

Through a comparative study of the United Kingdom and Spain, this article addresses the effect of different research governance structures on the functioning and uses of research evaluation. It distinguishes three main evaluation uses: distributive, improvement, and controlling. Research evaluation in the United Kingdom plays important distributive and improvement roles while the Spanish evaluation system plays, mainly, a controlling function and a minor distributive role. The differences that the article identifies should not be attributed to alleged different positions of the two countries in a putative research evaluation learning curve. Evaluation practice fits its national research governance structure.

Institutional repositories as complementary tools to evaluate the quantity and quality of research outputs

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 46-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anabel Bonilla-Calero
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Institutional Repositories ◽  
Evaluation Practice ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Original Approach

Purpose – The aim of this study is to analyse the advantages of using an institutional repository (IR) as a complementary source to evaluate the research output produced by a university. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on previous studies where IRs have been used as source to analyse the research output. Findings – Some advantages of using repositories as a tool to evaluate research output are: they help to evaluate the research output from different perspectives, using multidimensional approaches that combine various factors and types of documents with free access to all researchers, evaluators and society in general. Practical implications – The paper is aimed at researchers and experts that use Web of Knowledge and Scopus services to evaluate the research output. It recommends that they consider using IRs as an additional, practical and complementary tool to traditional databases. Originality/value – To underline the advantages of using an IR as a complementary source in the evaluation of research outputs; this evaluative approach is not sufficiently appreciated in comparison with the role of traditional (non-open access) databases. Adopting this original approach would be a significant enhancement to current research evaluation practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document