IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0012133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Method for the Automated, Reliable Retrieval of Publication-Citation Records

Author

Listed:
  • Derek Ruths
  • Faiyaz Al Zamal

Abstract

Background: Publication records and citation indices often are used to evaluate academic performance. For this reason, obtaining or computing them accurately is important. This can be difficult, largely due to a lack of complete knowledge of an individual's publication list and/or lack of time available to manually obtain or construct the publication-citation record. While online publication search engines have somewhat addressed these problems, using raw search results can yield inaccurate estimates of publication-citation records and citation indices. Methodology: In this paper, we present a new, automated method that produces estimates of an individual's publication-citation record from an individual's name and a set of domain-specific vocabulary that may occur in the individual's publication titles. Because this vocabulary can be harvested directly from a research web page or online (partial) publication list, our method delivers an easy way to obtain estimates of a publication-citation record and the relevant citation indices. Our method works by applying a series of stringent name and content filters to the raw publication search results returned by an online publication search engine. In this paper, our method is run using Google Scholar, but the underlying filters can be easily applied to any existing publication search engine. When compared against a manually constructed data set of individuals and their publication-citation records, our method provides significant improvements over raw search results. The estimated publication-citation records returned by our method have an average sensitivity of and specificity of (in contrast to raw search result specificity of less than 10%). When citation indices are computed using these records, the estimated indices are within of the true value, compared to raw search results which have overestimates of, on average, . Conclusions: These results confirm that our method provides significantly improved estimates over raw search results, and these can either be used directly for large-scale (departmental or university) analysis or further refined manually to quickly give accurate publication-citation records.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek Ruths & Faiyaz Al Zamal, 2010. "A Method for the Automated, Reliable Retrieval of Publication-Citation Records," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0012133
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012133
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012133&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0012133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun-Ting Zhang, 2009. "The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-4, May.
    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. Akshaya Kumar Biswal, 2013. "An Absolute Index (Ab-index) to Measure a Researcher’s Useful Contributions and Productivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-10, December.

    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. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    2. Aurelia Magdalena Pisoschi & Claudia Gabriela Pisoschi, 2016. "Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1075-1095, November.
    3. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 407-414.
    5. Zhenbin Yan & Qiang Wu & Xingchen Li, 2016. "Do Hirsch-type indices behave the same in assessing single publications? An empirical study of 29 bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1815-1833, December.
    6. Perc, Matjaž, 2010. "Zipf’s law and log-normal distributions in measures of scientific output across fields and institutions: 40 years of Slovenia’s research as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 358-364.
    7. M. Ryan Haley, 2016. "A ranking of journals for the aspiring health economist," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(18), pages 1710-1718, April.
    8. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    10. Shu-Chun Kuo & Yu-Tsen Yeh & Wei-Chih Kan & Tsair-Wei Chien, 2021. "The use of bootstrapping method to compare research achievements for ophthalmology authors in the US since 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 509-520, January.
    11. Corey J A Bradshaw & Justin M Chalker & Stefani A Crabtree & Bart A Eijkelkamp & John A Long & Justine R Smith & Kate Trinajstic & Vera Weisbecker, 2021. "A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    13. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    14. Stefano Vannucci, 2010. "Dominance dimension: a common parametric formulation for integer-valued scientific impact indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 43-48, July.
    15. Yu Liu & Wei Zuo & Ying Gao & Yanhong Qiao, 2013. "Comprehensive geometrical interpretation of h-type indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 605-615, August.
    16. Brady Lund, 2019. "Examination of correlates of H-index as a measure of research productivity for library and information science faculty in the United States and Canada," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 897-915, August.
    17. Alberto Pepe & Michael J Kurtz, 2012. "A Measure of Total Research Impact Independent of Time and Discipline," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    18. Roberto Todeschini, 2011. "The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 621-639, June.
    19. Kuan, Chung-Huei & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2011. "Ranking patent assignee performance by h-index and shape descriptors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 303-312.
    20. Nader Ebrahim & Hadi Salehi & Mohamed Embi & Mahmoud Danaee & Marjan Mohammadjafari & Azam Zavvari & Masoud Shakiba & Masoomeh Shahbazi-Moghadam, 2014. "Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 1-63, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0012133. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.