Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts
- 1 May 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Emerald in Online Information Review
- Vol. 30 (3), 297-309
- https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610675816
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to clarify some issues regarding citation indexing, analysis and searching.Design/methodology/approach: The paper begins with a discussion on an article in the D‐Lib Magazine and then focuses on deflated citation counts and inflated and phantom citation counts.Findings: The combination of the inflated citation count values dispensed by Google Scholar (GS) with the ignorance and shallowness of some GS enthusiasts can be a real mix for real scholars.Originality/value: The paper offers insight into deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggsOnline Information Review, 2006
- Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar serviceEthics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2005
- How do we count our chickens? Or do citation counts count?Online Information Review, 2005
- Start your enginesNature, 2005
- Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social SciencesLibrary Hi Tech News, 2005
- An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication EnvironmentD-Lib Magazine, 2005
- Google Scholar: the pros and the consOnline Information Review, 2005
- Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation IndexesLibri, 2005
- Comparison and Analysis of the Citedness Scores in Web of Science and Google ScholarLecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005
- Science searches shift up a gear as Google starts Scholar engineNature, 2004