Comparison and Analysis of the Citedness Scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar

  • Peter Jacso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3815)


An increasing number of online information services calculate and report the citedness score of the source documents and provide a link to the group of records of the citing documents. The citedness score depends on the breadth of source coverage, and the ability of the software to identify the cited documents correctly. The citedness score may be a good indicator of the influence of the documents retrieved. Google Scholar gives the most prominence to the citedness score by using it in ranking the search results. Tests have been conducted to compare the individual and aggregate citedness scores of items in the results list of various known-item and subject searches in Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS). This paper presents the findings of the comparison and analysis of the individual and aggregate citation scores calculated by WoS and GS for the papers published in 22 volumes of the Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology (APJAI). The aggregate citedness score was 1,355 for the 675 papers retrieved by WoS, and 595 for 680 papers found in GS. The findings of the analysis and comparison of tests, and the reasons for the significant limitations of Google Scholar in calculating and reporting the citedness scores are presented.


Allergy Immunol Result List Master List Bibliographic Record Citedness Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Bollacker, K.D., Lawrence, S., Lee, C.: CiteSeer: An Autonomous Web Agent for Automatic Retrieval and Identification of Interesting Publications. In: Proceedings of 2nd International ACM Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 116–123. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deis, L., Goodman, D.: Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. Charleston Advisor [online] (2005), 6,
  5. 5.
    Garfield, E.: Citation Indexes for Science. Science 122, 108–111 (1955), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garfield, E.: Science Citation Index – A New Dimension in Indexing. Science 144, 649–654 (1964), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garfield, E.: The Concept of Citation Indexing: A Unique and Innovative Tool for Navigating the Research Literature. [online],
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Henderson, J.G.S.: A source for clinicians? CMAJ 172(12) (June 7, 2005),
  10. 10.
    Hitchcock, S., Woukeu, A., Brody, T., Carr, L., Hall, W., Harnad, S.: Evaluating Citebase, an Open Access Web-based Citation-ranked Search and Impact Discovery Service. [online] (2003),
  11. 11.
    Jacsó, P., Redux, G.S.: Gale — Reference Reviews [online] (June 2005),
  12. 12.
    Jacsó, P., Scholar, G.: The Pros. and the Cons. Online Information Review, 29, 208-214. (2005),
  13. 13.
    Jacsó, P.: Citation Enhanced Indexing/Abstracting Databases. Online Information Review 28, 235–238 (2004), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacsó, P.: Citedness Scores for Filtering Information and Ranking Search Results. Online Information Review 28, 371–376 (2004), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacsó, P.: Browsing Indexes of Cited References. Online Information Review 29, 107–112 (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacsó, P.: As We Search: Comparison of Major Features of Citation-based and Citation-enhanced Databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar), Current Science, vol. 88 (2005) (in press)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy, S., Price, G.: Big News: “Google Scholar” is Born. Resourceshelf (2004),
  18. 18.
    Myhill, M.: Google Scholar review. Charleston Advisor [online] (2005), 6,
  19. 19.
    Thomson — ISI Citation Products,
  20. 20.
    Thomson — ISI Journal List,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Jacso
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer SciencesUniversity of HawaiiHonolulu

Personalised recommendations