IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v85y2010i2d10.1007_s11192-010-0270-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management

Author

Listed:
  • John Mingers

    (University of Kent)

  • Evangelia A. E. C. G. Lipitakis

    (University of Kent)

Abstract

Assessing the quality of the knowledge produced by business and management academics is increasingly being metricated. Moreover, emphasis is being placed on the impact of the research rather than simply where it is published. The main metric for impact is the number of citations a paper receives. Traditionally this data has come from the ISI Web of Science but research has shown that this has poor coverage in the social sciences. A newer and different source for citations is Google Scholar. In this paper we compare the two on a dataset of over 4,600 publications from three UK Business Schools. The results show that Web of Science is indeed poor in the area of management and that Google Scholar, whilst somewhat unreliable, has a much better coverage. The conclusion is that Web of Science should not be used for measuring research impact in management.

Suggested Citation

  • John Mingers & Evangelia A. E. C. G. Lipitakis, 2010. "Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 613-625, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:85:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0270-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruimin Ma & Qiangbin Dai & Chaoqun Ni & Xuelu Li, 2009. "An author co-citation analysis of information science in China with Chinese Google Scholar search engine, 2004–2006," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 33-46, October.
    2. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    3. Mingers, John & Xu, Fang, 2010. "The drivers of citations in management science journals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(2), pages 422-430, September.
    4. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    5. Anne‐Wil Harzing & Ron van der Wal, 2009. "A Google Scholar h‐index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 41-46, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike & Rezaie, Somayeh, 2010. "Using the Web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 124-135.
    3. Moussa, Salim & Touzani, Mourad, 2010. "Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based hg-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 107-117.
    4. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry, 2012. "Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 553-581, December.
    5. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Halevi, Gali & Moed, Henk & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 823-834.
    7. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    8. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    9. García-Pérez, Miguel A., 2011. "Strange attractors in the Web of Science database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 214-218.
    10. Kjetil K. Haugen & Frode E. Sandnes, 2016. "The new Norwegian incentive system for publication: from bad to worse," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1299-1306, November.
    11. Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida & Rafael Galvão de Almeida & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2017. "Academic rankings and pluralism : the case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 569, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    12. Peter Jacso, 2012. "Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 325-354, August.
    13. Antonio Cavacini, 2015. "What is the best database for computer science journal articles?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2059-2071, March.
    14. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner & Schier, Hermann & Rahm, Erhard & Thor, Andreas & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published els," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 27-35.
    15. Gad Saad, 2010. "Applying the h-index in exploring bibliometric properties of elite marketing scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 423-433, May.
    16. Xin Gu & Karen Blackmore, 2017. "Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1333-1350, March.
    17. Andersen, Jens Peter & Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, 2018. "Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 950-959.
    18. Christoph Bartneck, 2017. "Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human–robot interaction conference," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 179-194, January.
    19. Massimo Franceschet, 2010. "A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 243-258, April.
    20. Alberto Martín-Martín & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2018. "Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2175-2188, September.

    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:spr:scient:v:85:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0270-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.