Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Mingers, John; Kaymaz, Eren

doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0007

Abstract

Purpose

To design and test a method for normalizing book citations in Google Scholar.

Design/methodology/approach

A hybrid citing-side, cited-side normalization method was developed and this was tested on a sample of 285 research monographs. The results were analyzed and conclusions drawn.

Findings

The method was technically feasible but required extensive manual intervention because of the poor quality of the Google Scholar data.

Research limitations

The sample of books was limited and also all were from one discipline —business and management. Also, the method has only been tested on Google Scholar, it would be useful to test it on Web of Science or Scopus.

Practical limitations

Google Scholar is a poor source of data although it does cover a much wider range citation sources that other databases.

Originality/value

This is the first method that has been developed specifically for normalizing books which have so far not been able to be normalized.

References

Adriaanse, L., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016). Citation score normalized by cited references (Csncr): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 875–887.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bornmann, L., Thor, A., Marx, W., & Schier, H. (2016). The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the Humanities and Social Sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2778–2789.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cornford, T., & Smithson, S. (2005). Project research in information systems: A student’s guide. Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Crespo, J. A., Herranz, N., Li, Y., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2014). The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the Web of Science subject category level. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1244–1256.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2014). Review of the indirect citations paradigm: Theory and practice of the assessment of papers, authors and journals. Scientometrics, 99(2), 261–288.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2016). Three novel indirect indicators for the assessment of papers and authors based on generations of citations. Scientometrics, 106(2), 657–694.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Verleysen, F. T., & Zuccala, A. A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685–699.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harzing, A. W. 2007. Publish or Perish. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/pop.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heckscher, C. C., Maccoby, M., Ramirez, R., & Tixier, P. E. (2003). Agents of change: Crossing the post-industrial divide. Wiley Online Library.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klosik , D. F., & Bornholdt, S. (2014). The citation wake of publications detects nobel laureates’ papers. PloS one, 9(12), e113184.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kousha , K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Opthof, T., & Mutz, R. (2011). Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documents. arXiv.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). “Books” and “Book Chapters” in the Book Citation Index (Bkci) and Science Citation Index (Sci, Sosci, A & Hci). Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (Snip) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2365–2369.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meho, L., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J. 2008. Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with S-Curves. Journal Operational Research Society, 59(8), 1013–1025.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015a). Identifying research fields within business and management: A journal cross-citation analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(8), 1370– 1384.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015b). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2013). Evaluating a department’s research: Testing the Leiden methodology in business and management. Information Processing & Management, 49(3), 587–595.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mingers, J., & Meyer, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111–1121.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moed, H. (2010a). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moed, H. (2010b). The source-normalized impact per paper (Snip) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 211–213.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morgan , G. (1986). Images of Organisation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423–430.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prins, A. A. M., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 264–270.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Torres -Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. (2013). A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 833–849.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., & Visser, M. (2013). Some modifications to the Snip journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 272–285.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & van Raan, A. (2010). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & van Raan, A. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, G., Basso, A., Galleron, I., & Lippiello, T. (2018). More, less or better: The problem of evaluating books in SSH research. The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, A. Bonaccorsi (ed.). Springer, 133–158.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zitt, M. (2010). Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the audience factor. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 392–406.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: Some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89(1), 329–344.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuccala, A., Breum, M., Bruun, K., & Wunsch, B. T. (2018). Metric assessments of books as families of works. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 146–157.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuccala, A., & Cornacchia, R. (2016). Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 108(1), 465–484.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article