Response to Dr. Copiello’s comments on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts”

2019 ◽  
Vol 120 (3) ◽  
pp. 1499-1504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianjin Zong
Keyword(s):  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Video Abstract

The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (3) ◽  
pp. 1715-1727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianjin Zong ◽  
Yafen Xie ◽  
Rongchan Tuo ◽  
Jingshi Huang ◽  
Yang Yang
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Video Abstract

scholarly journals Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rovira ◽  
Codina ◽  
Guerrero-Solé ◽  
Lopezosa
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Growth Potential ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Unexpected Finding ◽  
Ranking Algorithms ◽  
Microsoft Academic ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact

Search engine optimization (SEO) constitutes the set of methods designed to increase the visibility of, and the number of visits to, a web page by means of its ranking on the search engine results pages. Recently, SEO has also been applied to academic databases and search engines, in a trend that is in constant growth. This new approach, known as academic SEO (ASEO), has generated a field of study with considerable future growth potential due to the impact of open science. The study reported here forms part of this new field of analysis. The ranking of results is a key aspect in any information system since it determines the way in which these results are presented to the user. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the relevance ranking algorithms employed by various academic platforms to identify the importance of citations received in their algorithms. Specifically, we analyze two search engines and two bibliographic databases: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic, on the one hand, and Web of Science and Scopus, on the other. A reverse engineering methodology is employed based on the statistical analysis of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The results indicate that the ranking algorithms used by Google Scholar and Microsoft are the two that are most heavily influenced by citations received. Indeed, citation counts are clearly the main SEO factor in these academic search engines. An unexpected finding is that, at certain points in time, Web of Science (WoS) used citations received as a key ranking factor, despite the fact that WoS support documents claim this factor does not intervene.

The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 1166-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahadat Uddin ◽  
Arif Khan
Keyword(s):  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals A citation analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Jacimovic ◽  
Ruzica Petrovic ◽  
Slavoljub Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Thomson Scientific ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Citation Databases

Introduction. For a long time, The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases, available online through the Web of Science (WoS), had an unique position among bibliographic databases. The emergence of new citation databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar (GS), call in question the dominance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and citation studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS could be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal. Material and Methods. The data regarding SDJ citation was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access? database. Results. One hundred and fifty-eight cited papers from SDJ and 249 received citations were found in the three analyzed databases. 74% of cited articles were found in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. The greatest number of citations (189) was derived from GS, while only 15% of the citations, were found in all three databases. There was a significant difference in the percentage of unique citations found in the databases. 58% originated from GS, while Scopus and WoS gave 6% and 4% unique citations, respectively. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18% only. In case of WoS and GS the overlap was 17%. Most of the SDJ citations came from original scientific articles. Conclusion. WoS, Scopus and GS produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for SDJ articles. None of the examined databases can provide a comprehensive picture and it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.

Why Do Some Articles in Planning Journals Get Cited More than Others?

2019 ◽  
pp. 0739456X1982708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. Stevens ◽  
Keunhyun Park ◽  
Guang Tian ◽  
Keuntae Kim ◽  
Reid Ewing
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
University Departments ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Article Citation

The planning literature has taken a recent interest in journal article citation counts, which are often used to measure the scholarly impact of articles, authors, or university departments. However, little is known about the factors that determine citation counts for planning-related articles. We find that citation counts in planning vary across planning topics and are also influenced by other journal, author, and article-related factors. We provide recommendations to planning researchers for increasing the impact of their research, and advise consumers of citation counts in planning to consider making particular adjustments to the counts to make them more meaningful.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document