BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Judit Bar-Ilan

Judit Bar-Ilan appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-phInformation RetrievalSocial and Information NetworksHuman-Computer Interaction

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus

A new methodology is proposed for comparing Google Scholar (GS) with other citation indexes. It focuses on the coverage and citation impact of sources, indexing speed, and data quality, including the effect of duplicate citation counts. The method compares GS with Elsevier's Scopus, and is applied to a limited set of articles published in 12 journals from six subject fields, so that its findings cannot be generalized to all journals or fields. The study is exploratory, and hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis-testing. It confirms findings on source coverage and citation impact obtained in earlier studies. The ratio of GS over Scopus citation varies across subject fields between 1.0 and 4.0, while Open Access journals in the sample show higher ratios than their non-OA counterparts. The linear correlation between GS and Scopus citation counts at the article level is high: Pearson's R is in the range of 0.8-0.9. A median Scopus indexing delay of two months compared to GS is largely though not exclusively due to missing cited references in articles in press in Scopus. The effect of double citation counts in GS due to multiple citations with identical or substantially similar meta-data occurs in less than 2 per cent of cases. Pros and cons of article-based and what is termed as concept-based citation indexes are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Bibliometrics and Information Retrieval: Creating Knowledge through Research Synergies

This panel brings together experts in bibliometrics and information retrieval to discuss how each of these two important areas of information science can help to inform the research of the other. There is a growing body of literature that capitalizes on the synergies created by combining methodological approaches of each to solve research problems and practical issues related to how information is created, stored, organized, retrieved and used. The session will begin with an overview of the common threads that exist between IR and metrics, followed by a summary of findings from the BIR workshops and examples of research projects that combine aspects of each area to benefit IR or metrics research areas, including search results ranking, semantic indexing and visualization. The panel will conclude with an engaging discussion with the audience to identify future areas of research and collaboration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Citation success index - An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric

In this paper we present "citation success index", a metric for comparing the citation capacity of pairs of journals. Citation success index is the probability that a random paper in one journal has more citations than a random paper in another journal (50% means the two journals do equally well). Unlike the journal impact factor (IF), the citation success index depends on the broadness and the shape of citation distributions. Also, it is insensitive to sporadic highly-cited papers that skew the IF. Nevertheless, we show, based on 16,000 journals containing ~2.4 million articles, that the citation success index is a relatively tight function of the ratio of IFs of journals being compared, due to the fact that journals with same IF have quite similar citation distributions. The citation success index grows slowly as a function of IF ratio. It is substantial (>90%) only when the ratio of IFs exceeds ~6, whereas a factor of two difference in IF values translates into a modest advantage for the journal with higher IF (index of ~70%). We facilitate the wider adoption of this metric by providing an online calculator that takes as input parameters only the IFs of the pair of journals.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

A bibliometric index based on the complete list of cited publications

We propose a new index, the $j$-index, which is defined for an author as the sum of the square roots of the numbers of citations to each of the author's publications. The idea behind the $j$-index it to remedy a drawback of the $h$-index $-$ that the $h$-index does not take into account the full citation record of a researcher. The square root function is motivated by our desire to avoid the possible bias that may occur with a simple sum when an author has several very highly cited papers. We compare the $j$-index to the $h$-index, the $g$-index and the total citation count for three subject areas using several association measures. Our results indicate that that the association between the $j$-index and the other indices varies according to the subject area. One explanation of this variation may be due to the proportion of citations to publications of the researcher that are in the $h$-core. The $j$-index is {\em not} an $h$-index variant, and as such is intended to complement rather than necessarily replace the $h$-index and other bibliometric indicators, thus providing a more complete picture of a researcher's achievements.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community

Altmetrics, indices based on social media platforms and tools, have recently emerged as alternative means of measuring scholarly impact. Such indices assume that scholars in fact populate online social environments, and interact with scholarly products there. We tested this assumption by examining the use and coverage of social media environments amongst a sample of bibliometricians. As expected, coverage varied: 82% of articles published by sampled bibliometricians were included in Mendeley libraries, while only 28% were included in CiteULike. Mendeley bookmarking was moderately correlated (.45) with Scopus citation. Over half of respondents asserted that social media tools were affecting their professional lives, although uptake of online tools varied widely. 68% of those surveyed had LinkedIn accounts, while Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate each claimed a fifth of respondents. Nearly half of those responding had Twitter accounts, which they used both personally and professionally. Surveyed bibliometricians had mixed opinions on altmetrics' potential; 72% valued download counts, while a third saw potential in tracking articles' influence in blogs, Wikipedia, reference managers, and social media. Altogether, these findings suggest that some online tools are seeing substantial use by bibliometricians, and that they present a potentially valuable source of impact data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web

Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access