, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 317–330 | Cite as

A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources

  • Liwen VaughanEmail author
  • Debora Shaw
Special-Session Papers Presented at the 9th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators


A sample of 1,483 publications, representative of the scholarly production of LIS faculty, was searched in Web of Science (WoS), Google, and Google Scholar. The median number of citations found through WoS was zero for all types of publications except book chapters; the median for Google Scholar ranged from 1 for print/subscription journal articles to 3 for books and book chapters. For Google the median number of citations ranged from 9 for conference papers to 41 for books. A sample of the web citations was examined and classified as representing intellectual or non-intellectual impact. Almost 92% of the citations identified through Google Scholar represented intellectual impact — primarily citations from journal articles. Bibliographic services (non-intellectual impact) were the largest single contributor of citations identified through Google. Open access journal articles attracted more web citations but the citations to print/subscription journal articles more often represented intellectual impact. In spite of problems with Google Scholar, it has the potential to provide useful data for research evaluation, especially in a field where rapid and fine-grained analysis is desirable.


Journal Article Citation Index Citation Count Book Chapter Open Access Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antelman, K. (2004), Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5): 372–382.Google Scholar
  2. Bakkalbasei, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., Wang, L. (2006), Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from
  3. Bakkalbasi, N., Goodman, D. (2004), Do science researchers use books? Paper presented at the XXIV Annual Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition, Charleston, South Carolina. PowerPoint slides retrieved June 23, 2006, from
  4. Bauer K., Bakkalbasi, N. (2005), An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved February 15, 2006, from
  5. Belew, R. K. (2005), Scientific Impact Quantity and Quality: Analysis of Two Sources of Bibliographic Data. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from arXiv:cs.IR/0504036v1Google Scholar
  6. Broadus, R. M. (1971), The literature of the social sciences: A survey of citation studies. International Social Science Journal, 23(2): 236–243.Google Scholar
  7. Cronin, B. (2005), A hundred million acts of whimsy. Current Science, 89(9): 1505–1509. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from Google Scholar
  8. Davis, P. M. (2006), Do Open-Access articles really have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 67(2): 103–104. Retrieved August 25, 2006, from Google Scholar
  9. Devin, R. B., Kellogg, M. (1990), The serial/monograph ratio in research libraries: Budgeting in light of citation studies. College & Research Libraries, 51(1): 46–54.Google Scholar
  10. Harnad, S. (2006), Let 1000 RAE metric flowers bloom: Avoid Matthew effect as self-fulfilling prophecy [posting to the ASIST SIG/Metrics listserv]. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://listserv.utk/edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606&L=sigmetrics&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=8071
  11. Jacsó, P. (2005a), As we may search — comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9): 1537–1547. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from Google Scholar
  12. Jacsó, P. (2005b), Comparison and analysis of the citedness scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar. Digital Libraries: Implementing Strategies and Sharing Experiences, Proceedings of the International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3815), 360–369. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from
  13. Jacsó, P. (2005c), Google Scholar and The Scientist. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from
  14. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. (2006), Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles, Scientometrics, 68: 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. (2007), Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7): 1055–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurtz, M. J. (2004), Restrictive Access Policies Cut Readership of Electronic Research Journal Articles by a Factor of Two. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from Google Scholar
  17. Lawrence, S. (2001), Online or invisible? Nature, 411(6837): 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meho, L. I. (2006), The End of Monopoly: Citation Analysis beyond Web of Science. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  19. Meho, L. I., Spurgin, K. M. (2005), Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12): 1314–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meho, L. I., Yang, K. (2007), Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13): 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merton, R. K. (1968), The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159(3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noruzi, A. (2005), Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4): 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., Wrede, C. (2006), The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2): 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pauly, D., Stergiou, K. I. (2005), Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s citation index and Google’s scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2005: 33–35.Google Scholar
  25. Roth, D. L. (2005), The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and the Web of Science. Current Science, 89(9): 1531–1536.Google Scholar
  26. Schaffer, T. (2004), Psychology citations revisited: Behavioral research in the age of electronic resources. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(5): 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. (2006), The open research web: A preview of the optimal and the inevitable. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from
  28. Simboli, B. (2006), Professional Associations and Impact Factors [posting on the CHEMINF-L listserv]. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from
  29. Van Impe, S., Rousseau, R. (2006), Web-to-print citations and the humanities. Information: Wissenschaft und Praxis, 57(8): 422–426.Google Scholar
  30. Vaughan, L., Shaw, D. (2003), Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14): 1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vaughan, L., Shaw, D. (2005), Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10): 1075–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhao, D. Z. (2005), Challenges of scholarly publications on the web to the evaluation of science: A comparison of author visibility on the web and in print journals. Information Processing & Management, 41(6): 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information and Media StudiesUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.School of Library and Information ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations