Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 1965–1978 | Cite as

The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: a citation analysis of Google Scholar

Article

Abstract

Citation counts can be used as a proxy to study the scholarly communication of knowledge and the impact of research in academia. Previous research has addressed several important factors of citation counts. In this study, we aim to investigate whether there exist quantitative patterns behind citations, and thus provide a detailed analysis of the factors behind successful research. The study involves conducting quantitative analyses on how various features, such as the author’s quality, the journal’s impact factor, and the publishing year, of a published scientific article affect the number of citations. We carried out full-text searches in Google Scholar to obtain our data set on citation counts. The data set is then set up into panels and used to conduct the proposed analyses by employing a negative binomial regression. Our results show that attributes such as the author’s quality and the journal’s impact factor do have important contributions to its citations. In addition, an article’s citation count does not only depend on its own properties as mentioned above but also depends on the quality, as measured by the number of citations, of its cited articles. That is, the number of citations of a paper seems to be affected by the number of citations of articles that the particular paper cites. This study provides statistical characteristics of how different features of an article affect the number of citations. In addition, it provides statistical evidence that the number of citations of a scientific article depends on the number of citations of the articles it cites.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Citation analysis Economics 

References

  1. Allison, P. D., & Waterman, R. P. (2002). Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1, 1.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, G., Huh, C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis. Scientometrics, 88, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, K., & Backkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Hans-Dieter, D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, G. (1980). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. The Review of Economic Studies, 47, 225–238.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, D. (1958). Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika, 45, 562–565.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, P. M., & Fromerth, M. J. (2006). Does the arxiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles. Scientometrics, 71, 2.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, S. H. (2016). (Non-) use of Foucault’s archaeology of knowledge and order of things in LIS journal literature, 1990–2015. Journal of Documentation, 72(3), 454–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding, C., Chi, C. H., Deng, J. & Dong, C. L. (1999). Citation retrieval in digital libraries, IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics. IEEE SMC99 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo (vol. 2, pp. 105–109).Google Scholar
  13. Dong, C. & Schafer, U. (2011). Ensemble-style self-training on citation classification. Proceedings of 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, (pp. 623–631). Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
  14. Fernández-Val, I. (2009). Fixed effects estimation of structural parameters and marginal effects in panel probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 150(1), 71–85.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfield, E. (1975). The obliteration phenomenon. Current Contents, 51(52), 5–7.Google Scholar
  16. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 15(305), 1511–1610.Google Scholar
  17. Greene, W. H. (1994). Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. New York: University Working Papers.Google Scholar
  18. Harter, S. P., & Ford, C. E. (2000). Web-based analysis of e-journal impact: approaches, problems, and issues. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(13), 1159–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harzing, A. K., & Wal, R. V. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Ismail, N., & Jemain A. A. (2007). Handling overdispersion with negative binomial and generalized Poisson regression models. Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, 103–158.Google Scholar
  23. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). International knowledge flows: evidence from patent citations. MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang, M., Shin, J. D., & Kim, B. (2015). Automatic subject classification of Korean journals based on KSCD. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(S1), 452–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kayvan, K. (2009). Characteristics of open access scholarly publishing: a multidisciplinary study. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kayvan, K., & Abdoli, M. (2010). The citation impact of open access agricultural research: a comparison between OA and non-OA publications. Online Information Review, 34(5), 772–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 6.Google Scholar
  28. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the science citation index: a comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1–14.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Lancaster, T. (2000). The incidental parameter problem since 1948. Journal of Econometrics, 95(2), 391–413.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citations. Scientometrics, 1(43), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 5(40), 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neyman, J., & Scott, E. L. (1948). Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica, 16(1), 1–32.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pesaran, M., & Malden, P. S. (1997). Handbook of applied econometrics (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Schreiber, S. (2008). The Hausman test statistic can be negative even asymptotically. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 228(4), 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, A. G. (2006). Google Scholar as a cybermetric tool: a comparison with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment, 9th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  39. van Aalst, J. (2010). Using Google Scholar to estimate the impact of journal articles in education. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsNortheast Normal UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations