Google Scholar Citation metrics of Pakistani LIS scholars: an overview
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2018-0025 |
| Pages | 392-412 |
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Author | Muhammad Yousuf Ali,Joanna Richardson |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Google Scholar Citation metrics
of Pakistani LIS scholars:
an overview
Muhammad Yousuf Ali
Library Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aga Khan University,
Karachi, Pakistan, and
Joanna Richardson
Library and Learning Services Department,
Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of thisstudy is to analyze the use of Google Scholar Citations’profilingplatform by
library and informationscience (LIS) scholars in Pakistan.
Design/methodology/approach –Purposive sampling was used to collect Google Scholar Citations
profiles between15 November 2017 and 31 January 2018. Resultantdata were analyzed in SPSS Version21.
Findings –In terms of demographical data, the study results were consistent with previous studies of
Pakistani LIS scholars. There were strong correlations between Google Scholar Citations metrics
(publications, citations, h-index and i10-index). The results indicate that, compared with a 2011 survey
of LIS academics in Pakistan, the overall uptake for this cohort remains relatively low. This cohort is
not maximizing the opportunity provided by this specificonlineprofiling system to increase research
visibility.
Research limitations/implications –As the study was limited to those Pakistani LIS scholars who
already had a profile on ResearchGate,it would be useful to broaden the research to encompass all Pakistani
LIS scholars.
Practical implications –The role of the librarianas an adviser in scholarly communication and impact
can be extended to supportscholars in the adoption of new online platforms for scholarlycommunication and
visibility.
Originality/value –There have been no publishedresearch studies on Google Scholar Citationsmetrics in
the contextof Pakistani LIS scholars as a whole.
Keywords Research impact, Altmetrics, Academic social networking, LIS researcher,
Researcher profile, Scholarly profile
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Bibliographic data is an important element in any research evaluation process. Its use in
performance evaluation is, in fact, decades old, as evidenced, for example, by the work of
Moed et al. (1985). In recent years, there has been a shift from focusing principally on the
research performance of individuals to that of whole-of-institution (Mingers and Meyer,
2017). Gingras (2016) has also noted that the evaluation of research performance is now
common across all levels of universities.
In the current higher education research environment, there has been a growing interest
in creating more effective evaluation tools to measure research performance. According to
the Office of Economic Development (2010, p. 3), such tools help to inform decisions on
GKMC
68,4/5
392
Received18 July 2018
Revised14 January 2019
Accepted25 January 2019
GlobalKnowledge, Memory and
Communication
Vol.68 No. 4/5, 2019
pp. 392-412
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9342
DOI 10.1108/GKMC-03-2018-0025
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2514-9342.htm
research funding and lead to greater accountability. Unsurprisingly, what is clearly
evolving are “new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of
established ones”(Wildgaard et al.,2014, p. 125). For example, the emergence of the open
access movement along with technologicaladvances in scholarly communication has given
rise to new indicators, such as altmetrics and social media (Veletsianos, 2016;Priem et al.,
2012).
In turn, this has led to the establishment of social networking websites, which target
particularly the academic community. Known as Academic Social —or Scholarly —
Networking Sites (ASNS), they include, but are not limited to, Academia.edu, Mendeley,
ResearchGate and Google Scholar Citations. One of the primary features of ASNS is the
provision of an online profiling platform, where authors can create professional curriculum
vitae. ASNS is not unique in offering this service; other major systems include ORCID,
Kudos and Publons (Gasparyan et al., 2017). The degree of functionality varies among the
different systems.
In Pakistan, as in other developing countries, the national body responsible for higher
education, i.e. the Higher Education Commission (HEC), has promulgated goals regarding
improving research outcomes. Given the potential of online profiling systems to increase
researcher impact (Delgado L
opez-C
ozar et al., 2018;Martín-Martín et al., 2018;Gasparyan
et al.,2017), the authors have investigated the use specifically of Google Scholar Citations’
profiling platform by library and information science (LIS) scholars in Pakistan. For the
purposes of this paper, the authors have used the term “scholar”to encompass LIS
academics, researchersand professionals (practitioners).
2. Related research
2.1 Citation databases/indices
Using bibliometric data as a foundation, major publishers have created large abstract and
citation databases/indices to support research evaluation, e.g. Web of Science, Scopus and,
more recently, Google Scholar. Citations are important because, as Thelwall and Kousha
(2017, p. 1125) observe, “Citationcounts are frequently used to support research evaluations,
for example to help compare the relative merits of individual researchers or research
groups”. They are also reported in various international ranking systems, e.g. QS World
University Rankings, Times Higher Education World University Rankings and Academic
Ranking of World Universities(ARWU).
It is not the authors’intention to discuss the relative merits, or otherwise, of the use of
citations as a meaningful research performance metric, as the topic has already been well
covered for many years in the literature. However, a brief overview of the three major
citation systems is useful to help contextualize the authors’investigation of Google Scholar
Citations as an online profiling platformthat uses a citation database, i.e. Google Scholar,as
the foundation for its service.
Between 2006 and 2017, a number of researchers have reported on their comparative
studies of Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar’s(GS’s) citation databases.
Whereas, Meho and Yang (2007, p. 2105) concluded that the “use of Scopus and GS,in
addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly
impact of authors”,Falagas et al. (2008, p. 338) reported that “For citation analysis, Scopus
offers about 20 per cent more coveragethan Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers
results of inconsistent accuracy”. In a comparative study of the coverage of business and
management, Mingers and Lipitakis (2010, p. 625) concurred that Google Scholar suffered
from problems of data reliability,but concluded that it was more comprehensive thanWoS.
Google Scholar
Citation
393
To continue reading
Request your trial