1 / 27

CiteSearch: Multi-faceted Fusion Approach to Citation Analysis

CiteSearch: Multi-faceted Fusion Approach to Citation Analysis. Kiduk Yang and Lokman Meho Web Information Discovery Integrated Tool Laboratory School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University January 18, 2007. CiteSearch: What, Why, & How. Goal

chyna
Télécharger la présentation

CiteSearch: Multi-faceted Fusion Approach to Citation Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CiteSearch:Multi-faceted Fusion Approach to Citation Analysis Kiduk Yang and Lokman Meho Web Information Discovery Integrated Tool Laboratory School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University January 18, 2007

  2. CiteSearch: What, Why, & How • Goal • Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications • Motivation • Lack of comprehensive citation database • Limitations of conventional citation analysis • One-dimensional assessment • Misleading evaluation • Approach • Multi-faceted, Fusion-based Citation Analysis • Combine data from multiple citation databases • Assess quality using various quality evaluation measures

  3. CiteSearch Study: Overview • Objectives • Investigate current citation analysis environment • Test the viability of CiteSearch system • Method • Search citation databases and compare the results • Setup • Study sample • Publications of 15 SLIS faculty members (approx. 1,100 publications) • Databases used • Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science • Citation sources • Journals and conference papers in 1996-2005

  4. Citation Databases • Data collection • WoS: 100 hours • Scopus: 200 hours • GS: over 3,000 hours

  5. Scopus and WoS: Citation Count • Scopus vs. WoS • 14.0% (278) more citations by Scopus • More comprehensive coverage by Scopus (15,000 vs. 8,700 periodicals) • Scopus + WoS • Scopus increases WoS citations by 35% (710) • WoS increases Scopus citations by 19.0% (432) • Relatively low overlap (58%) and high uniqueness (42%) Web of Science (2,023) Scopus (2,301) 26%(710) 58%(1,591) 16%(432) Scopus  WoS (2,733)

  6. Impact of Scopus By Research Area - varies significantly between research areas

  7. Impact of Scopus on Faculty Members Relative Ranking Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those faculty members that appear in the middle of the rankings

  8. Scopus + WoS: Citation Count By Document Type Conference Papers Only WoS (229) Scopus (359) 54%(267) 28%(137) 18%(92) Scopus  WoS (496)

  9. Scopus + WoS: Summary of Results • Coverage • Varies greatly between research areas • Increase in citations ranges from 5% to 99% by combining results from both databases • Scopus has a much better coverage of conference proceedings • Overlap: 18% • Scopus only: 54% • WoS only: 28% • Ranking by citation count • Relative ranking of faculty members changes significantly for those in the middle

  10. Google Scholar Citations By Document Type

  11. Citations By Language

  12. Impact of GS By Research Area

  13. Impact of GS on Faculty Members Relative Ranking GS does not significantly alter the rankings of faculty members

  14. GS vs. ScopusWoS • GS increases WoSScopus citations by 93% (2,552) • ScopusWoS increases GS citations by 26% (1,104) • GS identifies 53% (or 1,448) more citations than WoSScopus • GS has much better coverage of conference proceedings • (1,849 by GS vs. 496 by ScopusWoS) • GS has over twice as many unique citations as ScopusWoS • (2,552 vs. 1,104, respectively) Google Scholar (4,181) ScopusWoS (2,733) 48%(2,552) 31%(1,629) 21%(1,104) GSScopusWoS (5,285)

  15. GS + ScopusWoS: Summary of Results • Coverage • Varies greatly between research areas • 23% to 144% increase by combining GS & ScopusWoS • 5% to 98% increase by combining Scopus & WoS • GS has strong coverage in CS & IS • HCI, IR, computational linguistics, social informatics • ScopusWoS has stronger coverage in LS • Bibliometrics, collection development, information policy • GS provides significantly better coverage of non-English materials • GS (7%); Scopus (1%); WoS (1%) • Ranking • No significant changes in relative ranking of faculty members

  16. Findings • Scopus, WoS, and GS complement rather than replace each other • GS can be useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through Scopus and WoS • GS can be very useful for citation searching purposes; however, it is not conducive for large-scale comparative citation analyses • Scopus significantly alters the relative citation ranking of scholars as measured by Web of Science. GS does not

  17. Conclusions • Multiple sources of citations should be used to generate accurate citation counts and rankings • Citation databases complement one another • Small overlap between sources may significantly influence relative ranking • Multi-faceted citation analysis is needed • citation coverage varies by research area, document type, language • CiteSearch can greatly facilitate citation analysis • Enormous effort is required to • Refine search strategy • Parse search results • Eliminate noise (duplicate citations) • Extract & normalize citation metadata

  18. CiteSearch System: Overview • A Web-based citation search and analysis tool • Work-in-progress prototype system • Search multiple citation sources • Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, ProQuest, etc. • Extract and compile citation metadata • Parse & normalize the search results • Compute various citation-based quality evaluation measures • Document-based measures • Weighted citation counts, CiteRank • Author-based measures • Weighted publication counts, H-Index, Mentor-Index

  19. CiteSearch System: Architecture

  20. End

  21. CiteSearch System: Work-in-Progress • Federated Citation Search • To compile comprehensive & usable citation data • Query multiple citation databases • Filter out noise • e.g., invalid, duplicate citations • Extract & normalize metadata • bibliographical metadata (e.g., title, author, year, source, etc.) • citation metadata (e.g., doctype, subject, language, etc.) • Multi-faceted Citation Analysis • To produce multi-faceted quality/impact assessment measures that • account for variance in citation quality (e.g., Weighted citation counts, CiteRank) • consider various facets of evaluation metric (e.g., Document type, language) • accommodate diffent aspects of quality assessment (e.g., H-Index, Mentor-Index) • Compute citation-based quality scores (CQS) for each publication • Compute CQS for authors, schools, publishers using publication CQS • Compute CQS for each publication weighted by author/school/publisher scores • Compute CQS for authors, schools, publishers using weighted publication CQS • Repeat steps 3 and 4 until convergence

  22. CiteSearch Study: Citation Databases • Web of Science • 3 Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) databases • Standard tool for citation studies worldwide • 35 million records from 9,000 publishers • Scopus • Produced by Elsevier • 27 million records from 15,000 publishers • Google Scholar • 500 million records • UBC (http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/archives/025964.html) • Unknowns • Coverage (subject, publisher, time-span) • Document type and refereed status of records

  23. Google Scholar Citations by Year

  24. Sources of Unique Citations

  25. CiteSearch Study: GS + Scopus + WoS Scopus (2308) Google Scholar (4203) 8.2% (435) 5.3% (282) 48.3%(2561) 18.3% (970) 11.7% (617) 4.3% (230) 3.8% (204) WoS (2025) GS Scopus  WoS (5307)

More Related