Baneyx Audrey
Institut Francilien "Recherche, Innovation et Société" (IFRIS), Université Paris-Est Marne La Vallée, Paris, France.
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2008 Nov-Dec;56(6):363-71. doi: 10.1007/s00005-008-0043-0. Epub 2008 Dec 1.
Traditionally, the most commonly used source of bibliometric data is the Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge, in particular the (Social) Science Citation Index and the Journal Citation Reports, which provide the yearly Journal Impact Factors. This database used for the evaluation of researchers is not advantageous in the humanities, mainly because books, conference papers, and non-English journals, which are an important part of scientific activity, are not (well) covered. This paper presents the use of an alternative source of data, Google Scholar, and its benefits in calculating citation metrics in the humanities. Because of its broader range of data sources, the use of Google Scholar generally results in more comprehensive citation coverage in the humanities. This presentation compares and analyzes some international case studies with ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. The fields of economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history are focused on to illustrate the differences of results between these two databases. To search for relevant publications in the Google Scholar database, the use of "Publish or Perish" and of CleanPoP, which the author developed to clean the results, are compared.
传统上,文献计量数据最常用的来源是汤姆森ISI科学网,尤其是(社会)科学引文索引和期刊引证报告,它们提供年度期刊影响因子。这个用于评估研究人员的数据库在人文学科领域并不具有优势,主要原因在于书籍、会议论文以及非英文期刊(而这些都是科学活动的重要组成部分)未得到(充分)涵盖。本文介绍了另一种数据来源——谷歌学术的使用情况及其在计算人文学科引文指标方面的优势。由于其数据来源范围更广,使用谷歌学术通常会使人文学科的引文覆盖范围更全面。本报告比较并分析了一些使用ISI科学网和谷歌学术的国际案例研究。重点关注经济学、地理学、社会科学、哲学和历史等领域,以说明这两个数据库结果的差异。为了在谷歌学术数据库中搜索相关出版物,对“科研评价助手”以及作者开发的用于清理结果的CleanPoP的使用情况进行了比较。