Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines

被引:24
作者
Andersen, Jens Peter [1 ]
Nielsen, Mathias Wullum [1 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ, Danish Ctr Studies Res & Res Policy, Bartholins Alle 7, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
关键词
Gender in research; Academic careers; Google Scholar; Web of Science; h-Index; H-INDEX; BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; JOURNALS; SCOPUS; RESEARCHERS; BUSINESS; ECONOMICS; AUTHOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.010
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:950 / 959
页数:10
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university [J].
Aksnes, DW ;
Taxt, RE .
RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2004, 13 (01) :33-41
[2]   Faculty consulting in natural sciences and engineering: between formal and informal knowledge transfer [J].
Amara, Nabil ;
Landry, Rejean ;
Halilem, Norrin .
HIGHER EDUCATION, 2013, 65 (03) :359-384
[3]  
Andersen J. P., 2017, P 16 INT C SCIENT IN
[4]  
Andersen JP, 2016, 21ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS (STI 2016), P852
[5]  
Bakkalbasi Nisa, 2006, Biomed Digit Libr, V3, P7, DOI 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
[6]  
Bar-Ilan J., 2010, INDICATORS BOOK ABST, P28
[7]   The emperor's new clothes: the h-index as a guide to resource allocation in higher education [J].
Barnes, Cameron .
JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 2014, 36 (05) :456-470
[8]   The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Thor, Andreas ;
Marx, Werner ;
Schier, Hermann .
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 67 (11) :2778-2789
[9]  
Bosman Jeroen., 2006, Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar
[10]   Gender and the evaluation of research [J].
Brooks, Chris ;
Fenton, Evelyn M. ;
Walker, James T. .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2014, 43 (06) :990-1001