Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research assessment carries important implications both at the individual and institutional levels. This paper examines the research outputs of scholars in business schools and shows how their performance assessment is significantly affected when using data extracted either from the Thomson ISI Web of Science (WoS) or from Google Scholar (GS). The statistical analyses of this paper are based on a large survey data of scholars of Canadian business schools, used jointly with data extracted from the WoS and GS databases. Firstly, the findings of this study reveal that the average performance of B scholars regarding the number of contributions, citations, and the h-index is much higher when performances are assessed using GS rather than WoS. Moreover, the results also show that the scholars who exhibit the highest performances when assessed in reference to articles published in ISI-listed journals also exhibit the highest performances in Google Scholar. Secondly, the absence of association between the strength of ties forged with companies, as well as between the customization of the knowledge transferred to companies and research performances of B scholars such as measured by indicators extracted from WoS and GS, provides some evidence suggesting that mode 1 and 2 knowledge productions might be compatible. Thirdly, the results also indicate that senior B scholars did not differ in a statistically significant manner from their junior colleagues with regard to the proportion of contributions compiled in WoS and GS. However, the results show that assistant professors have a higher proportion of citations in WoS than associate and full professors have. Fourthly, the results of this study suggest that B scholars in accounting tend to publish a smaller proportion of their work in GS than their colleagues in information management, finance and economics. Fifthly, the results of this study show that there is no significant difference between the contributions record of scholars located in English language and French language B schools when their performances are assessed with Google Scholar. However, scholars in English language B schools exhibit higher citation performances and higher h-indices both in WoS and GS. Overall, B scholars might not be confronted by having to choose between two incompatible knowledge production modes, but with the requirement of the evidence-based management approach. As a consequence, the various assessment exercises undertaken by university administrators, government agencies and associations of business schools should complement the data provided in WoS with those provided in GS.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As indicated by Hirsch (2005, p. 16569), «A scientist has index h of his or her N p papers have at least h citations each and the other (N p  − h) papers have ≤h citations each», where N p indicates the number of papers published.

  2. The h-index is not considered in this analysis because it is not possible to distinguish the proportions from WoS and GS.

  3. A variation rate (∆I) for an indicator I is calculated by the following formula: ∆I = (I PoP  − I WoS )/I WoS.

References

  • Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F., Jr. (2003). Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baneyz, A. (2008). “Publish or Perish” as citation metrics used to analyse scientific output in the humanities: Internal case studies in economics, geography, social science, philosophy, and history. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of Wos, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M. (2011). What has happened to Mode 2? British Journal of Management, 22, 555–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. H. (2005). How Business Schools lost their way. Harvard Business, Review, May.

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2003). Technology transfer and the academic department: who participates and why? Distinguished Lecture, DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, 12–14 June 2002.

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2006). RQF pilot study project—History and political science methodology for citation analysis. Accessed from http://www.chass.org.au/papers/pdf/PAP20061102LB.pdf.

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caswill, C., & Wensley, R. (2007). Doors and boundaries: A recent history of the relationship between research and practice in UK organizational and management research. Business History, 49, 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In U. D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 159–178). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts—or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, S. E. (1998). How to design online surveys. Training and Development, 52, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish. available from: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The Publish or Perish Book: Your guide to effective responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011). Scholarship that matters: Academic-practitioner engagement in business and management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian University researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39, 1386–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organiational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 19, 179–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2008). Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch-index. Journal of Operational Research Society, 60(8), 1143–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Harzing, A. (2007). Ranking journals in business and management : A statistical analysis of the Harzing dataset. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. A. E. C. G. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85, 613–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolau, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). The double hurdles for management research. In T. Clarke (Ed.), Advancement in organizational behavior: Essays in honour of derek S. Puh (pp. 277–296). London: Darmouth Press.

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (2011). Scholarship with impact. Brisish Journal of Management., 22, 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. V. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (2009). The theory/practice gap: A problem for research in business schools? Journal of Management Development, 28(8), 685–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Görtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: A balanced approach. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, Special Issue-S3-S-26.

  • Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2009). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning,. doi:10.1016/jlrp.2009.07.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H., & Wilson, A. (2009). An analysis of the environment and competitive dynamics of management research. Journal of Management development, 28(8), 668–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, R., Eden, C., Bessant, J., & Ellwood, P. (2011). Rigour, relevance and reward: introducing the knowledge translation value-chain. British Journal of Management, 22, 420–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 33–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, W. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behaviour of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge financial assistance provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We also would like to thank all the faculty members of Canadian business schools who participated in our survey. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry

Authors
  1. Nabil Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Réjean Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nabil Amara.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

Table 11 Distribution of faculty members regarding their total number of contributions in (a) GS and (b) WoS
Full size table
Table 12 Comparison of means of total number of papers published between faculty members in the FS and those in the ROP sample (Independent-samples t test on ranked data)a
Full size table
Table 13 Comparison of means of total number of citations between faculty members in the FS and in the ROP sample (Independent-samples t test on ranked data)a
Full size table
Table 14 Distribution of samples (FS vs ROP) of faculty members according to academic rank (Chi-square test)a
Full size table
Table 15 Operational definitions of variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amara, N., Landry, R. Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics 93, 553–581 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation