IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i1p7-d131028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services

Author

Listed:
  • Isabelle Dorsch

    (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany)

  • Johanna M. Askeridis

    (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany)

  • Wolfgang G. Stock

    (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany)

Abstract

A truebounded publication list of a scientific author consists of exactly all publications that meet two criteria: (1) they are formally published (e.g., journal article or proceeding paper); (2) they have scientific, scholarly, or academic content. A publication list is overbounded if it includes documents which do not meet the two criteria (such as novels); a publication list is underbounded if it is incomplete. Are authors’ personal publication lists, found on their personal sites on the Internet or in institutional repositories, truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? And are the respective publication lists generated through bibliographic information services truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? As case studies, publications of nine International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Committee members (published between 2007 and 2016) were collected to create preferably complete personal publication lists according to the two criteria. We connect the “relative visibility of an author” with the concepts of truebounded, overbounded, and underbounded publication lists. The authors’ relative visibility values were determined for the information services Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar and compared to the relative visibility of the authors’ personal publication lists. All results of the bibliographic information services are underbounded. Relative visibility is highest in Google Scholar, followed by Scopus and WoS.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabelle Dorsch & Johanna M. Askeridis & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2018. "Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:7-:d:131028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/1/7/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/1/7/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabelle Dorsch, 2017. "Relative visibility of authors’ publications in different information services," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 917-925, August.
    2. Peter Ingwersen, 2000. "The International Visibility and Citation Impact of Scandinavian Research Articles in Selected Social Science Fields: The Decay of a Myth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 39-61, August.
    3. Avishag Gordon, 2012. "The invisibility of science publications in hebrew: A comparative database study," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 607-615, March.
    4. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    5. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2014. "A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 565-575, January.
    6. Avishag Gordon, 2012. "The invisibility of science publications in hebrew: A comparative database study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 607-615, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johanna M. Askeridis, 2018. "An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 615-624, October.
    2. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    3. Wolfgang G. Stock & Isabelle Dorsch & Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2023. "Labor productivity, labor impact, and co-authorship of research institutions: publications and citations per full-time equivalents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 363-377, January.
    4. Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2022. "On the possibilities of presenting the research performance of an institute over a long period of time: the case of the Institute of Information Science at the University of Graz in Austria," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3193-3223, June.
    5. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabelle Dorsch, 2017. "Relative visibility of authors’ publications in different information services," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 917-925, August.
    2. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Enrique Orduna-Malea & Selenay Aytac & Clara Y. Tran, 2019. "Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: a retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 433-450, October.
    5. Silvia Blasi & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2022. "Mapping the emergence of a new organisational form: An exploration of the intellectual structure of the B Corp research," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 107-123, January.
    6. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 325-334, January.
    7. Maribel Vega-Arce & Gonzalo Salas & Gastón Núñez-Ulloa & Cristián Pinto-Cortez & Ivelisse Torres Fernandez & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2019. "Research performance and trends in child sexual abuse research: a Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1505-1525, December.
    8. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    9. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    10. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Mid-career field switches reduce gender disparities in academic publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1365-1383, June.
    11. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    12. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    13. Manuel Sánchez-Pérez & Nuria Rueda-López & María Belén Marín-Carrillo & Eduardo Terán-Yépez, 2021. "Theoretical dilemmas, conceptual review and perspectives disclosure of the sharing economy: a qualitative analysis," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 1849-1883, October.
    14. Stephen, Dimity & Stahlschmidt, Stephan, 2021. "Performance and structures of the German science system 2021," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2021, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    15. Simon Zaby, 2019. "Science Mapping of the Global Knowledge Base on Microfinance: Influential Authors and Documents, 1989–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Emilio Abad-Segura, 2021. "Sustainable Business Model in the Product-Service System: Analysis of Global Research and Associated EU Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-33, September.
    17. Katarzyna Piwowar‐Sulej, 2021. "Core functions of Sustainable Human Resource Management. A hybrid literature review with the use of H‐Classics methodology," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 671-693, July.
    18. Myriam Dunn Cavelty, 2018. "Cybersecurity Research Meets Science and Technology Studies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(2), pages 22-30.
    19. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Kun Lu & Gang Li, 2021. "Finding citations for PubMed: a large-scale comparison between five freely available bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9519-9542, December.
    20. Hsia-Ching Chang, 2016. "The Synergy of Scientometric Analysis and Knowledge Mapping with Topic Models: Modelling the Development Trajectories of Information Security and Cyber-Security Research," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 1-33, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:7-:d:131028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.