Relative visibility of authors’ publications in different information services
Publication hit lists of authors, institutes, scientific disciplines etc. within scientific databases like Web of Science or Scopus are often used as a basis for scientometric analyses and evaluations of these authors, institutes etc. However, such information services do not necessarily cover all publications of an author. The purpose of this article is to introduce a re-interpreted scientometric indicator called “visibility,” which is the share of the number of an author’s publications on a certain information service relative to the author’s entire œuvre based upon his/her probably complete personal publication list. To demonstrate how the indicator works, scientific publications (from 2001 to 2015) of the information scientists Blaise Cronin (N = 167) and Wolfgang G. Stock (N = 152) were collected and compared with their publication counts in the scientific information services ACM, ECONIS, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Infodata eDepot, LISTA, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as the social media services Mendeley and ResearchGate. For almost all information services, the visibility amounts to less than 50%. The introduced indicator represents a more realistic view of an author’s visibility in databases than the currently applied absolute number of hits in those databases.
KeywordsInformation service Methodology Personal publication lists Publication analysis Relative visibility Scientometric indicator Visibility
The author would like to thank Stefanie Haustein for the access to the Web of Science core collection. Special thanks go to the reviewers. I am very grateful for your feedback and new insights for this study.
- Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social web. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 98–109). Montreal: Science-Metrix et OST.Google Scholar
- Dorsch, I., & Frommelius, N. (2015). A scientometric approach to determine and analyze productivity, impact and topics based upon personal publication lists. In F. Pehar, C. Schlögl, & C. Wolff (Eds.), Re:inventing Information Science in the Networked Society. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (ISI 2015) (pp. 578–580). Glückstadt, Germany: Hülsbusch.Google Scholar
- Holl, A., Makara, G., Micsik, A., & Kovacs, L. (2014). MTMT: The Hungarian scientific bibliography. In Uses of Open Data within Government for Innovation and Efficiency, 2014.06.30–2014.07.01, Samos. p. 5.Google Scholar
- Jones, R., MacGillivray, M., Murray-Rost, P., Pitman, J., Sefton, P., O’Steen, B., et al. (2011). Open bibliography for science, technology, and medicine. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Kirkwood, P. E. (2012). Researcher publication checklist: A quantitative method to compare traditional databases to Web search engines. In 119th American society for engineering education annual conference and exhibition, San Antonio, TX, June 10–13, 2012.Google Scholar
- Schlögl, C. (2013). International visibility of European and in particular German-language publications in library and information science. In H.-C. Hobohm (Eds.), Informationswissenschaft zwischen virtueller Infrastruktur und materiellen Lebenswelten. Tagungsband des 13. internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013) (pp. 51–62). Glückstadt: Hülsbusch.Google Scholar
- Stock, W. G. (2000). Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in der Wissenschaftsforschung [What is a/one publication? The problem of creating units in scientometrics]. In K. Fuchs-Kittowski, H. Laitko, H. Parthey, & W. Umstätter (Eds.), Wissenschaft und Digitale Bibliothek. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 1998 (pp. 239–282). Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
- Xin, R. S., Hassanzadeh, O., Fritz, C., Sohrabi, S., & Miller, R. J. (2013). Publishing bibliographic data on the Semantic Web using BibBase. Semantic Web, 4(1), 15–22.Google Scholar