Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Exploring prestigious citations sourced from top universities in bibliometrics and altmetrics: a case study in the computer science discipline

Abstract

Citation count is an important indicator for measuring research outputs. There have been numerous studies that have investigated factors affecting citation counts from the perspectives of cited papers and citing papers. In this paper, we focused specifically on citing papers and explored citations sourced from prestigious affiliations in the computer science discipline. The QS World University Rankings was employed to identify prestigious citations, named QS citations. We used the Microsoft Academic Graph, a massive scholarly dataset, and conducted different kinds of analysis between papers with QS citations and those without QS citations. We discovered that papers with QS citations are generally associated with higher total citation counts than those without QS citations. We extended the analysis to authors and journals, and the results indicated that when authors or journals have higher proportions of papers with QS citations, they are usually associated with higher values of the H-index or the Journal Impact Factor respectively. Additionally, papers with QS citations are also associated with a higher Altmetric Attention Score and a higher number of specific types of altmetrics such as tweet counts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  2. 2.

    http://www.altmetric.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  3. 3.

    http://www.shanghairanking.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  4. 4.

    http://www.leidenranking.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  5. 5.

    http://dblp.uni-trier.de. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  6. 6.

    http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2015/computer-science-information-systems. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  7. 7.

    Calculation of 5-year impact factor: http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/. Accessed 25 September 2017.

References

  1. Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.

  2. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.

  3. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.

  4. Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669–687.

  5. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.

  6. Brizan, D. G., Gallagher, K., Jahangir, A., & Brown, T. (2016). Predicting citation patterns: Defining and determining influence. Scientometrics, 108(1), 183–200.

  7. Burrell, Q. L. (2007). On the H-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin’s A-index. Jounrnal of Informetrics, 1(2), 170–177.

  8. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.

  9. CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Methodology. (2015). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Retrieved from http://www.leidenranking.com/Content/CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015.pdf.

  10. Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing and Management, 47(1), 80–96.

  11. Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L., et al. (2016). A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 200–211.

  12. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. J., & Theng, Y. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.

  13. Freyer, L. (2014). Robust rankings review of multivariate assessments illustrated by the Shanghai rakings. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1313-8.

  14. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.

  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.

  16. Ivanovic, D., & Ho, Y. (2016). Highly cited articles in the information science and library science category in social science citation index: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 36–46.

  17. Khor, K. A., & Yu, L. (2016). Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1095–1110.

  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1327–1336.

  19. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.

  20. Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2011). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1146–1155.

  21. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.

  22. Malesios, C. (2015). Some variations on the standard theoretical models for the h-index: A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2384–2388.

  23. Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0.

  24. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/493159a.

  25. Rousseau, R., & Ding, J. (2016). Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 1009–1013.

  26. Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., et al. (2015). An overview of microsoft academic service (MAS) and applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742839.

  27. Slyder, J. B., Stein, B. R., Sams, B. S., et al. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x.

  28. Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.06.005.

  29. Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2.

  30. Thelwall, M. (2016). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347.

  31. Tijssen, R., Visser, M., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381–397.

  32. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.

  33. West, J. D., Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2010). The Eigenfactor Metrics™: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries, 71(3), 236–244.

  34. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2010). Weighted citation: An indicator of an article’s prestige. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1635–1643.

  35. Yan, E., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2011). Institutional interactions: Exploring social, cognitive, and geographic relationships between institutions as demonstrated through citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1498–1514.

  36. Yu, T., Yu, G., Li, P., et al. (2014). Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regressionanalysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233–1252.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Science of Research, Innovation and Enterprise programme (SRIE Award No. NRF2014-NRF-SRIE001-019).

Author information

Correspondence to Feiheng Luo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, F., Sun, A., Erdt, M. et al. Exploring prestigious citations sourced from top universities in bibliometrics and altmetrics: a case study in the computer science discipline. Scientometrics 114, 1–17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2571-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citation analysis
  • University rankings
  • H-index
  • Journal impact factor
  • Altmetrics