An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Chapman, Karen
dc.contributor.author Ellinger, Alexander E.
dc.date.accessioned 2022-04-27T14:19:10Z
dc.date.available 2022-04-27T14:19:10Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.identifier.citation Chapman, K., & Ellinger, A. E. (2019). An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management. International Journal of Logistics Management, 30(4), 1039–1053. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-04-2019-0110 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/8469
dc.description.abstract Purpose: Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from. Design/methodology/approach: In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies. Findings: The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed. Practical implications: The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the en_US
dc.description.uri https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2019-0110
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language English en_US
dc.subject Bibliometrics en_US
dc.subject Operations management en_US
dc.subject Journal citations en_US
dc.subject Citation impact en_US
dc.subject Citation metrics en_US
dc.subject Citation analysis en_US
dc.subject Bibliographic databases en_US
dc.subject Academic search engines en_US
dc.subject Google Scholar en_US
dc.subject SCM citations en_US
dc.subject Logistics citations en_US
dc.subject Operations research citations en_US
dc.title An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management en_US
dc.type text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account