Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

被引:22
|
作者
Kousha, Kayvan [1 ]
Thelwall, Mike [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wolverhampton, Sch Math & Comp Sci, Stat Cybermetr Res Grp, Wulfruna St, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, W Midlands, England
关键词
Dissertations; Theses; Impact assessment; Citation analysis; Google scholar; Mendeley; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS; ELECTRONIC THESES; CITATION ANALYSIS; HUMANITIES; WEB; PUBLICATION; READERSHIP; PROGRAMS; COUNTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.009
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:467 / 484
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Google Scholar - Platforming the scholarly economy
    Goldenfein, Jake
    Griffin, Daniel
    [J]. INTERNET POLICY REVIEW, 2022, 11 (03): : 1 - 34
  • [2] Altmetric analysis of the theses and dissertations of the Graduate Program in Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine at the Federal University of Minas Gerais at Google Scholar and Mendeley
    Rezende Costa, Belkiz Inez
    Oliveira, Marlene
    de Araujo, Ronaldo Ferreira
    [J]. BIBLIOTECAS-ANALES DE INVESTIGACION, 2020, 16 (03): : 221 - 235
  • [3] Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus
    Notess, GR
    [J]. ONLINE, 2005, 29 (04): : 39 - 41
  • [4] A Study for Scholarly Impacts of International Relations Academics and Departments in Turkey through Google Scholar Data
    Balci, Ali
    Cicio Glu, Filiz
    Kalkan, Duygu
    [J]. ULUSLARARASI ILISKILER-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 2019, 16 (64): : 57 - 75
  • [5] How Scholarly Is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases
    Howland, Jared L.
    Wright, Thomas C.
    Boughan, Rebecca A.
    Roberts, Brian C.
    [J]. COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, 2009, 70 (03): : 227 - 234
  • [6] The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: a citation analysis of Google Scholar
    Yutao Sun
    Belle Selene Xia
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109 : 1965 - 1978
  • [7] Using Google Scholar to track the scholarly output of research groups
    Thoma, Brent
    Chan, Teresa M.
    [J]. PERSPECTIVES ON MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2019, 8 (03) : 201 - 205
  • [8] The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: a citation analysis of Google Scholar
    Sun, Yutao
    Xia, Belle Selene
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2016, 109 (03) : 1965 - 1978
  • [9] Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK
    Kousha, Kayvan
    Thelwall, Mike
    [J]. QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES, 2020, 1 (02): : 479 - 504
  • [10] Google Scholar as a source for scholarly evaluation: a bibliographic review of database errors
    Orduna-Malea, Enrique
    Martin-Martin, Alberto
    Delgado Lopez-Cozar, Emilio
    [J]. REVISTA ESPANOLA DE DOCUMENTACION CIENTIFICA, 2017, 40 (04): : 1 - 33