scholarly journals Scholar Metrics Scraper (SMS): automated retrieval of citation and author data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole A. Cheung ◽  
Dean Giustini ◽  
Jeffrey LeDue ◽  
Tim H. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliometric Data ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Citation Metrics ◽  
Over Time

Academic departments, research clusters and evaluators analyze author and citation data to measure research impact and to support strategic planning. We created a tool, Scholar Metrics Scraper (SMS), to automate the retrieval of this bibliometric data for our research team. The project contains Jupyter notebooks (publicly-shared here) that take a list of researchers as an input to export a CSV file of citation metrics from Google Scholar and figures to visualize the group's impact. SMS is a scalable, open and publicly-accessible solution for automating the retrieval of citation data over time for a group of researchers.

Freedom of Research Area

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Weatherson
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Freedom Of Research ◽  
Continued Employment ◽  
Over Time

Some writers have said that academic freedom should extend to giving academics complete freedom over what they choose to research. I argue against this: it is consistent with academic freedom for universities to hire people to research particular subjects, and to make continued employment conditional on at least some of the academic’s research being in the areas they were hired to work in. In practice, many academics think that their fellow academics should be free to choose to work on anything that’s within the disciplinary boundaries of the department they were hired into. I argue that’s both too narrow and too broad. Academic freedom implies that researchers should be allowed to have their research focus drift over time. But the boundaries of permissible drift do not correspond to anything like the boundaries of contemporary academic departments.

scholarly journals Historical Disparities and Gendered Citation Patterns

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. M. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Over Time

In this comment on Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell’s article “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields,” I explore the role of changes in the disparities of citations to work written by women over time. Breaking down their citation data by era, I find that some of the patterns in citations are the result of the legacy of disparity in the field. Citations to more recent work come closer to matching the distribution of the gender of authors of published work. Although the need for more equitable practices of citation remains, the overall patterns are not quite as bad as Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell conclude.

How Strategic Planning Practices Evolve Over Time: Longitudinal Case Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 10112
Author(s):  
Heidi Korin ◽  
Hannele M J Seeck ◽  
Kirsi Liikamaa
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Longitudinal Case Study ◽  
Over Time

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Chapman ◽  
Alexander E. Ellinger
Keyword(s):  
Operations Management ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
English Language Journal ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations

Purpose Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from. Design/methodology/approach In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies. Findings The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed. Practical implications The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued. Originality/value Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.

SMEs ECT Reality

2009 ◽  
pp. 421-439
Author(s):  
Zakia A. Elsammani
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Electronic Commerce ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Change Agent ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Web Presence ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Development And Management ◽  
Over Time

Lack of strategic planning in e-commerce and subsequently e-business adoption within smallto medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been strongly reported in literature. This chapter presents SMEs’ Web presence implementation patterns and unravels the reasons behind the lack of strategic planning when adopting Electronic Commerce Technologies (ECT). The chapter presents findings from semi-structured interviews from 11 SMEs in the Northwest of the UK. Findings reflect the difference in development and management practices of Web presence, between the more able Need Pull SMEs that identified the need to adopt ECT, and the less able Technology Push SMEs that were mostly influenced by change agent diffusion and awareness efforts. Over time, each group of SMEs reflect a different pattern in ECT implementation. This chapter depicts the issues that hinder SMEs, particularly in micro and small, in moving beyond Web site adoption.

The ever-changing face of Chinese Interpreting Studies

Target ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziyun Xu
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Institutional Level ◽  
The Past ◽  
Academic Influence ◽  
Over Time

As the discipline of Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) has continued to expand rapidly over the past twenty years, scientometric research has been applied increasingly often to analyse its trends and patterns. Drawing inspiration from Social Network Analysis (SNA), this study aims to quantify academic research impact and identify patterns of influence at an institutional level in Chinese Interpreting Studies (CIS), by seeking answers to the following questions: Which are the most influential publications? Which institutions carry the most weight? How have their respective levels of influence evolved over time? By analysing a near-exhaustive corpus of 59,303 citations from CIS literature, the study reveals that the majority of influential publications are monographs and theoretical in nature, though many Chinese textbooks on interpreting are also highly influential. It also finds that an institution’s ranking in research productivity does not necessarily translate into high academic influence.

scholarly journals Tracking self-citations in academic publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ameni Kacem ◽  
Justin W. Flatt ◽  
Philipp Mayr
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Accurate Picture ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Problematic Area ◽  
Citation Metrics

AbstractCitation metrics have value because they aim to make scientific assessment a level playing field, but urgent transparency-based adjustments are necessary to ensure that measurements yield the most accurate picture of impact and excellence. One problematic area is the handling of self-citations, which are either excluded or inappropriately accounted for when using bibliometric indicators for research evaluation. Here, in favor of openly tracking self-citations we report on self-referencing behavior among various academic disciplines as captured by the curated Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. Specifically, we examined the behavior of 385,616 authors grouped into 15 subject areas like Biology, Chemistry, Science & Technology, Engineering, and Physics. These authors have published 3,240,973 papers that have accumulated 90,806,462 citations, roughly five percent of which are self-citations. Up until now, very little is known about the buildup of self-citations at the author-level and in field-specific contexts. Our view is that hiding self-citation data is indefensible and needlessly confuses any attempts to understand the bibliometric impact of one’s work. Instead we urge academics to embrace visibility of citation data in a community of peers, which relies on nuance and openness rather than curated scorekeeping.

scholarly journals Exploração colaborativa através do compartilhamento de dados de citações do Google Scholar │ Collaborative exploration on citation data sharing in Google Scholar

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiago Rodrigo Marçal Murakami ◽  
Sibele Fausto ◽  
Ronaldo Ferreira de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collaborative Exploration ◽  
The Impact

RESUMO A falta de indexação dos títulos de revistas científicas de Ciências Humanas e Sociais em bases de dados comerciais restringe a investigação sobre seu impacto. O Acesso Aberto, ferramentas como o Google Scholar (GS) e aplicativos de processamento de dados permitem a busca e a recuperação de citações de artigos, sinalizando uma alternativa para os estudos sobre o impacto da produção científica publicada nessas áreas. Este estudo apresenta um projeto piloto de compartilhamento de dados de citações de periódicos para a investigação colaborativa por parte da comunidade de cientometria brasileira com o objetivo de incentivar uma maior utilização do GS para fins bibliométricos.Palavras-chave: Dados de Citação; Google Acadêmico; Periódicos Científicos; Colaboração.ABSTRACT The lack of indexing for titles of scientific journals in the Social Sciences and Humanities in commercial databases makes it difficult to carry out an investigation on their impact. Open Access and tools such as Google Scholar (GS) and software for data processing allow search and the recovery of article citations, which can be regarded as an alternative for the studies on the impact of scientific production published in these areas. This study presents a pilot project for sharing citation data from Brazilian journals for further collaborative research by the national scientometrics community with the aim of encouraging greater use of GS for bibliometric purposes.Keywords: Citation Data; Google Scholar; Sharing; Journals; Scientific Collaboration.

Ranking Faculties, Ph.D. Programs, Individual Scholars, and Influential Articles in Accounting Information Systems Based on Citations to Publications in the Journal of Information Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl M. Guffey ◽  
Nancy L. Harp
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Accounting Information ◽  
Accounting Systems ◽  
Accounting Information Systems ◽  
Current Accounting ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Citation Metrics ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACT This paper ranks systems faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual accounting systems researchers, and the most influential accounting systems articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in the Journal of Information Systems (JIS). All articles published in JIS for its first 25 years of existence are included and four citation metrics are used. Information is presented over three time periods (1986–1993, 1994–2001, and 2002–2010) to provide additional insights on changes over time. The study also analyzes the content and research methods of “most cited” articles and describes trends in the types of systems research that have had the greatest impact. Findings suggest that JIS's impact has consistently improved over time. The H-index for JIS also suggests that the journal compares favorably among its peers. A correlation analysis between the four citation metrics and the number of articles published in JIS provides evidence that counting articles published is a reasonable proxy for the influence or significance of authors. Potential doctoral students with an interest in accounting information systems, new Ph.D.s with an interest in accounting information systems, current accounting information systems faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document