Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

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

  • Feiheng Luo
  • Aixin Sun
  • Mojisola Erdt
  • Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar
  • Yin-Leng Theng
Article

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.

Keywords

Citation analysis University rankings H-index Journal impact factor Altmetrics 

Notes

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).

References

  1. Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brizan, D. G., Gallagher, K., Jahangir, A., & Brown, T. (2016). Predicting citation patterns: Defining and determining influence. Scientometrics, 108(1), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0.Google Scholar
  24. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature.  https://doi.org/10.1038/493159a.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  30. Thelwall, M. (2016). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu, T., Yu, G., Li, P., et al. (2014). Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regressionanalysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233–1252.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and InformationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations