scholarly journals Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation rates: a case study of medical physics and biomedical engineering: what gets cited and what doesn’t?

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 817-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Trapp
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad R. Khosravi ◽  
Varun G. Menon

This paper presents a case report on detecting hijacked journals. Towards identification of a fake journal website and preventing a hijacked paper, we use different tools including Google Scholar - as an altmetric tool, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, both as scientometric databases, to distinguish fake website from a legal (printed) journal. Our evaluation shows that analysis of a doubtful website should be done not just using Google Scholar. In fact, use of scientometric tools for tracking prior publications of the journal is compulsory. Main result of this case study is that in some uncommon cases, fake websites may convince scientometric databases in order to be fully/partially indexed along with an abstracting of their hijacked papers. Therefore as a results, we should check both WoS and Scopus for verifying a fake website.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad R. Khosravi ◽  
Varun G. Menon

This short paper presents a case report on detecting hijacked journals. Towards identification of a fake journal website and preventing a hijacked paper, we can use different tools including Google Scholar (an altmetric tool), Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (both as scientometric databases) to distinguish a fake website from a legal journal website. Our evaluation shows that analysis of a doubtful website for a targeted journal based on Google Scholar is not reliable. In fact, the use of scientometric tools for tracking prior publications of the targeted journal is compulsory. Another result of this case study is that in some uncommon cases, fake websites may sometimes convince a scientometric database in order to be partially indexed along with an abstracting of their hijacked papers while these websites steal identity of the legal journals. Therefore as a results, we should check both of WoS and Scopus for verifying a fake website at the same time to obtain more reliability.


Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 76-87
Author(s):  
Cristian Ioan Popa

The Romanian university system includes periodical or conjunctural evaluations. In most cases, the tools are given by the unanimously recognized bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) or by the debatable ones (Google Scholar). The latter, which is also the most accessed in such cases, represents the subject of an analysis in which not only the information selection criteria are challenged, but also the means of calculating the h-index. As a case study, the author analyses his own scientific works, thus revealing great discrepancies between the numbers obtained through the services provided by Google Scholar and the real numbers that exceed the former by more than half. This fact indicates an obvious disadvantage for a scholar who is evaluated through the aforementioned tools in which the analysis of the citations plays a key role. Moreover, the present paper shall also discuss other minuses of the higher education system in which certain individuals’ or certain institutions’ hunt for academic visibility has generated a series of chicaneries. The most often used are those that seek interdisciplinary collectives, in which one’s professional participation is minimal, but the professional prestige is maximal.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad R. Khosravi ◽  
Varun G. Menon

This short paper presents a case report on detecting hijacked journals. Towards identification of a fake journal website and preventing a hijacked paper, we can use different tools including Google Scholar (an altmetric tool), Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (both as scientometric databases) to distinguish a fake website from a legal journal website. Our evaluation shows that analysis of a doubtful website for a targeted journal based on Google Scholar is not reliable. In fact, the use of scientometric tools for tracking prior publications of the targeted journal is compulsory. Another result of this case study is that in some uncommon cases, fake websites may sometimes convince a scientometric database in order to be partially indexed along with an abstracting of their hijacked papers while these websites steal identity of the legal journals. Therefore as a results, we should check both of WoS and Scopus for verifying a fake website at the same time to obtain more reliability.


2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 391-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra L. De Groote ◽  
Rebecca Raszewski

BioScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S Halpern ◽  
Eric Berlow ◽  
Rich Williams ◽  
Elizabeth T Borer ◽  
Frank W Davis ◽  
...  

Abstract Synthesis has become ubiquitous in ecology. Despite its widespread application to a broad range of research topics, it remains unclear how synthesis has affected the discipline. Using a case study of publications (n = 2304) from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis compared with papers with similar keywords from the Web of Science (n = 320,000), we address several questions about the comparative impact of synthesis, the role of synthesis in driving key research themes, and whether synthesis is focused on different topics than is the broader ecological literature. We found much higher citation rates for synthesis papers overall (fivefold more) and within eleven key topic themes (e.g., species richness, biodiversity, climate change, global change). Synthesis papers often played key roles in driving, redirecting, or resolving core questions and exhibited much greater cross-theme connectivity. Together, these results indicate that synthesis in science has played a crucial role in accelerating and advancing ecological knowledge.


2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rayana Jaafar ◽  
Vijay Pereira ◽  
Samer S. Saab ◽  
Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar

PurposeWith over 3,000 academic journals in the fields of Business and Economics, most academics face a hard time selecting an adequate journal to submit their work to. In today's demanding academic environment and with the presence of different journal ranking lists (JRLs), the selection becomes more difficult when considering employment, promotion and funding. The purpose of this paper is to explore key differences among multiple JRLs pertinent to the latter common objectives. An extensive analysis is conducted to compare the content of journals in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality list, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the fields of Business and Economics. Then, a case of a university with medium research output is considered where scholarly performance evaluation is based on the ABDC Journal Quality List.Design/methodology/approachAfter ranking journals in the fields of Business and Economics based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, JCR's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and JCR's Eigenfactor (EF), a methodology is proposed to categorize journals in the three JRLs into the same categorization adopted by ABDC. The latter establishes a way to compare the four JRLs under consideration and serves as a basis to compare and analyze the content of journals in the ABDC Journal Quality list, Scopus and WoS. As a proxy impact metric, a normalized citation count is associated with each article based on Google Scholar. The publications of the considered university are then evaluated from the perspective of the four JRLs in terms of citation-based impact and quality while considering the exposure to popular world university ranking tables.FindingsFor journals classified under fourth tier by ABDC, over 53 and 59% are not indexed by Scopus and WoS, respectively. In this case study, over 42% of the publications appear in journals that are not listed in JCR despite the fact that over 94% of them are listed by the SJR list. Generally, publications that appear in journals listed by JCR achieve, on a yearly average, significantly higher citation rates when compared to those that appear in journals listed in ABDC and SJR Lists.Originality/valueA four-tier mapping is proposed for consistent comparison among JRLs. Normalized citation count associated with each article based on Google Scholar is employed for evaluation. The findings provide recommendations for scholars, administrators and global universities, including Euro-Med Universities, on which JRL can be more influential for both faculty development and positioning of the university.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document