Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar

By Judit Bar-Ilan. Scientometrics, 2008

765 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Statistics and Probability, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e8a400b157f0419f1c5d12eecd41cb516c1b6477

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Statistics and Probability

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index (2010, methodology): “The use of Google Scholar as a citation source involves many problems (Meho 2006; Bar-Ilan 2008).”
h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields (2009, background): “To do so, Bar-Ilan (2008a) proposes to compute the h-index of topics instead of authors.”
The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis (2010, neutral): “Retrieve citation data from sources such as the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus , and Google Scholar .”
Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009, background): “For instance, Bar-Ilan (2008), Belew (2005), Meho and Yang (2007), Meho and Rogers (2008) and Vaughan and Shaw (2008) compared small samples of researchers’ citation rates and h-indexes.”
A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university (2009, methodology): “BAR-ILAN & AL. [2007] proposed a set of measures for evaluating the similarity between rankings.”
Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey (2015, background): “as source for citation counts [218–220], but the numbers can give a rough idea of a paper’s popularity.”
Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation - Review of the Literature (2017, background): “Bar-Ilan (2008) examined the variation of authors’ h- index when using different citations indexes.”
Reflections on recent developments of the h-index and h-type indices (2008, neutral): “Judit Bar-Ilan (2008) compared h-indices of highly cited Israeli researchers based on citation counts retrieved from WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar.”
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, background): “istory of the impact factor are provided by Bensman (2007) and Archambault and Larivière (2009). The impact factor causes a lot of debate. Some of the discussion on the impact factor is summarized by Bar-Ilan (2008a). Recently, discussion took place in a special issue of Scientometrics (Braun, 2012)”
A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective (2019, background): “database of citations and abstracts of the research literature and provided a wide coverage of the review topic [32].”
A further step forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator (2012, background): “The problem of the tendency for the scores to decrease as the calculation incorporates ever more journals and documents is overcome by dividing a journal's portion of prestige gained by the portion of citable documents.”
Economic Freedom of the World: An Accounting of the Literature (2014, neutral): “Bar-Ilan (2008) compares and contrasts the SSCI, Scopus, and Google Search databases and concludes that the standard citation metrics are similar when using SSCI or Scopus, while Google Scholar is often considerably different.”
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases (2013, neutral): “Bar-Ilan (2008) compares the h-index of a list of highly cited authors based on citations counts recovered from the WOS and Scopus.”