Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0007

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: To design and test a method for normalizing book citations in Google Scholar.

Design/methodology/approach: A hybrid citing-side, cited-side normalization method was developed and this was tested on a sample of 285 research monographs. The results were analyzed and conclusions drawn.

Findings: The method was technically feasible but required extensive manual intervention because of the poor quality of the Google Scholar data.

Research limitations: The sample of books was limited and also all were from one discipline —business and management. Also, the method has only been tested on Google Scholar, it would be useful to test it on Web of Science or Scopus.

Practical limitations: Google Scholar is a poor source of data although it does cover a much wider range citation sources that other databases.

Originality/value: This is the first method that has been developed specifically for normalizing books which have so far not been able to be normalized.

Key words: Google Scholar, Book citations, Normalization, Research evaluation

John Mingers?,Eren Kaymaz. "Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.4, no.2, 2019, pp.19-35. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2019-0007

References

[1]	Adriaanse L,&Rensleigh C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727-744.
[2]	Bornmann L,&Haunschild R. (2016). Citation score normalized by cited references (Csncr): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 875-887.
[3]	Bornmann L,&Marx W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408-418.
[4]	Bornmann L., Thor A., Marx W., & Schier H. (2016). The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the Humanities and Social Sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2778-2789.
[5]	Cornford T,&Smithson S (2005). Project research in information systems: A student’s guide. Springer.
[6]	Crespo J. A., Herranz N., Li Y., & Ruiz-Castillo J. (2014). The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the Web of Science subject category level. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1244-1256.
[7]	Fragkiadaki E,&Evangelidis G. (2014). Review of the indirect citations paradigm: Theory and practice of the assessment of papers, authors and journals. Scientometrics, 99(2), 261-288.
[8]	Fragkiadaki E,&Evangelidis G. (2016). Three novel indirect indicators for the assessment of papers and authors based on generations of citations. Scientometrics, 106(2), 657-694.
[9]	Garfield E.(1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.
[10]	Giménez-Toledo E., Ma?ana-Rodríguez J., Engels T. C., Ingwersen P., P?l?nen J., Sivertsen G., Verleysen F. T., & Zuccala A. A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685-699.
[11]	Gl?nzel W., Thijs B., & Chi P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165-2179.
[12]	Harzing A. W.2007. Publish or Perish. Retrieved from .
[13]	Harzing, A. W., &Alakangas S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804.
[14]	Heckscher C. C., Maccoby M., Ramirez R., & Tixier P. E. (2003). Agents of change: Crossing the post-industrial divide. Wiley Online Library.
[15]	Klosik , D.F., &Bornholdt S. (2014). The citation wake of publications detects nobel laureates’ papers. PloS one, 9(12), e113184.
[16]	Kousha K., Thelwall M., & Rezaie S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164.
[17]	Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L., Opthof T., & Mutz R. (2011). Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documents. arXiv.
[18]	Leydesdorff L., &Felt U. (2012). “Books” and “Book Chapters” in the Book Citation Index (Bkci) and Science Citation Index (Sci, Sosci, A & Hci). Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1-7.
[19]	Leydesdorff L,&Opthof T. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (Snip) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2365-2369.
[20]	Meho L,&Yang K (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
[21]	Mingers J.2008. Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with S-Curves. Journal Operational Research Society, 59(8), 1013-1025.
[22]	Mingers J,&Leydesdorff L. (2015a). Identifying research fields within business and management: A journal cross-citation analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(8), 1370-1384.
[23]	Mingers J,&Leydesdorff L. (2015b). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1-19.
[24]	Mingers J,&Lipitakis E. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613-625.
[25]	Mingers J,&Lipitakis E. (2013). Evaluating a department’s research: Testing the Leiden methodology in business and management. Information Processing & Management, 49(3), 587-595.
[26]	Mingers J,&Meyer M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111-1121.
[27]	Moed H. (2010a). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265-277.
[28]	Moed H. (2010b). The source-normalized impact per paper (Snip) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 211-213.
[29]	Morgan G.(1986). Images of Organisation. Newbury Park: Sage.
[30]	Opthof T,&Leydesdorff L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423-430.
[31]	Prins A. A. M., Costas R., van Leeuwen T. N., & Wouters P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 264-270.
[32]	Torres-Salinas D., Robinson-García N., Cabezas-Clavijo á., & Jiménez-Contreras E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113-2127.
[33]	Waltman L., & van Eck, N. (2013). A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 833-849.
[34]	Waltman L., van Eck N., van Leeuwen T., & Visser M. (2013). Some modifications to the Snip journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 272-285.
[35]	Waltman L., van Eck N., van Leeuwen T., Visser M., & van Raan A. (2010). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.
[36]	Waltman L., van Eck N., van Leeuwen T., Visser M., & van Raan A. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467-481.
[37]	Williams G., Basso A., Galleron I., & Lippiello T. (2018). More, less or better: The problem of evaluating books in SSH research. The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, A. Bonaccorsi (ed.). Springer, 133-158.
[38]	Zitt M. (2010). Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the audience factor. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 392-406.
[39]	Zitt M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: Some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89(1), 329-344.
[40]	Zuccala A., Breum M., Bruun K., & Wunsch B. T. (2018). Metric assessments of books as families of works. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 146-157.
[41]	Zuccala A,&Cornacchia R. (2016). Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 108(1), 465-484.