, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 613–625 | Cite as

Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management

  • John Mingers
  • Evangelia A. E. C. G. Lipitakis


Assessing the quality of the knowledge produced by business and management academics is increasingly being metricated. Moreover, emphasis is being placed on the impact of the research rather than simply where it is published. The main metric for impact is the number of citations a paper receives. Traditionally this data has come from the ISI Web of Science but research has shown that this has poor coverage in the social sciences. A newer and different source for citations is Google Scholar. In this paper we compare the two on a dataset of over 4,600 publications from three UK Business Schools. The results show that Web of Science is indeed poor in the area of management and that Google Scholar, whilst somewhat unreliable, has a much better coverage. The conclusion is that Web of Science should not be used for measuring research impact in management.


Citations Google Scholar Research impact Web of Science 


  1. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7). doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7.
  2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evidence Ltd. (2004). Bibliometric profiles for selected units of assessment. Leeds: Evidence Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Harzing, A.-W., & Van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. HEFCE. (2008a). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts (no. 2008/14). HEFCE.
  6. HEFCE. (2008b). Survey of institutions interested in participating in the pilot of the bibliometrics indicator. HEFCE.
  7. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacso, P. (2005). 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.Google Scholar
  9. Ma, R., Dai, Q., Ni, C., & Li, X. (2009). An author co-citation analysis of information science in China with Chinese Google Scholar search engine, 2004–2006. Scientometrics, 81(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mahdi, S., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2008). Citation counts: Are they good predictors of RAE scores? London: AIM Research.Google Scholar
  11. 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 of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mingers, J. (2008). Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch-index. Journal of Operational Research Society, 60(8), 1143–1153.Google Scholar
  13. Mingers, J., & Burrell, Q. (2006). Modelling citation behavior in management science journals. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1451–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mingers, J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Ranking journals in business and management: A statistical analysis of the Harzing dataset. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mingers, J., & Xu, F. (2010). The drivers of citations in management science journals. European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 422–430.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moed, H., & Visser, M. (2008). Appraisal of citation data sources. Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  17. Moed, H., Visser, M., & Buter, R. (2008). Development of bibliometric indicators of research quality. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University: Leiden.Google Scholar
  18. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Bibliometric databases—scoping project. Louborough: Department of Information Science, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  19. Tenopir, C. (2004). Online scholarly journals: How many? Library Journal, 129(2), 32.Google Scholar
  20. Tenopir, C. (2005). Google in the academic library. Library Journal, 130(2), 32.Google Scholar
  21. van Raan, A. (2003). The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. Technology Assessment Theory and Practice, 1(12), 20–29.Google Scholar
  22. Walters, W. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, 43, 1121–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Mingers
    • 1
  • Evangelia A. E. C. G. Lipitakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent Business SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations