[Sigmetrics] Bibliometrics & bibliometricians in Google Scholar Citations and ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, Twitter

Bornmann, Lutz lutz.bornmann at gv.mpg.de
Wed Nov 4 09:35:21 EST 2015

Dear Emilio,

Thank you for this information! Very interesting!

I wished I were also a similar erroneous case in the WoS database :-)



>-----Original Message-----
>From: SIGMETRICS [mailto:sigmetrics-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of Emilio
>Delgado López-Cózar
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:11 PM
>Subject: [Sigmetrics] Bibliometrics & bibliometricians in Google Scholar
>Citations and ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, Twitter
>Dear Lutz,
>thank you for your kind comments.
>We created Dr. Garfield's Google Scholar profile in private (it's not
>accessible to the public) following the same procedures we previously
>used for creating the profiles of other great researchers in our field,
>and that way we could collect the same indicators we collected for the
>rest of researchers. We made this exception with him because we believe
>the product would be incomplete without him.
>This product, as its title suggests, is a mirror of the different ways
>a researcher's scientific performance can be represented on the Web. We
>wanted to compare all these different platforms, and precisely, to bring
>attention to the differences among them. As you noticed, there is a huge
>difference between the h index according to ResearcherID (WoS data) and
>the h index according to Google Scholar, but in this case, the
>difference has been caused by a Web of Science error. If you access Dr.
>Garfield's ResearcherID profile, and sort by citations, you'll find a
>great number of works published on Current Contents, many of them with
>exactly 200 citations. There is another group of works with 155
>citations, and other groups with a smaller number of citations. If you
>access Web of Science and look for these documents, you'll notice all of
>them have been attributed the same group of citations, incorrectly.
>There are even cases of documents that cite themselves! This is clearly
>an error on the part of Web of Science, and one of the goals of our
>product is to bring attention to these errors.
>As we stated in the previous message, we're writing a paper about the
>data found in these tables where this error, and some others, will be
>Thank you again for you interest.
>Best regards,
>SIGMETRICS mailing list
>SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list