Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Looking deeper into academic citations through network analysis: popularity, influence and impact

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Google Scholar (GS) has progressively emerged as a tool which “provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources.” As a free tool that provides citation metrics, GS has opened the academic word to a much larger audience, according to an open information philosophy. GS’ profiles are largely used not only to have a quick look at the authors and their works but, more and more often, as a “de facto” metric to quickly evaluate the research impact. This process looks unstoppable and discussing about its fairness, advantages and disadvantages, as well as about social implications is out of the scope of this paper. We rather prefer to (1) briefly discuss the changes and the innovation that GS has introduced and to (2) propose possible improvements for analysis on academic citations. Our methods are aimed at considering a GS profile in its proper context, providing a social perspective on academic citations: Although maintaining a fundamentally quantitative focus, novel approaches, based on complex network analysis, distinguish between a research impact on the authors’ research network and a more general impact on the scientific community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acm digital library. http://dl.acm.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  2. Core—conference portal. http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/. Accessed 01 Feb 2017

  3. Googlescholar. http://scholar.google.com. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  4. Ieeexplore. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  5. Journal Citation Report (JCR). http://about.jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com. Accessed 01 Feb 2017

  6. Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  7. Scopus. https://www.scopus.com. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  8. Semantic Scholar Project. https://www.semanticscholar.org/. Accessed 01 Feb 2017

  9. Thomson ISI Web of Science. http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/web-of-science.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  10. Aggarwal, C.C., Wang, H., et al.: Managing and Mining Graph Data, vol. 40. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Antelman, K.: Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? Coll. Res. Libr. 65(5), 372–382 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., Wang, L.: Three options for citation tracking: Google scholar, scopus and web of science. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 3(1), 7 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Balduzzi, M., Platzer, C., Holz, T., Kirda, E., Balzarotti, D., Kruegel, C.: Abusing social networks for automated user profiling. In: Jha, S., Sommer, R., Kreibich, C. (eds.) Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, pp. 422–441. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  14. Banks, M.: Connections between open access publishing and access to gray literature. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 92(2), 164 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bar-Ilan, J.: Which h-index? A comparison of wos, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74(2), 257–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Barabâsi, A.-L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., Vicsek, T.: Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 311(3), 590–614 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Ceri, S., Bozzon, A., Brambilla, M., Della Valle, E., Fraternali, P., Quarteroni, S.: Web information retrieval. Data-centric systems and applications, Springer, Berlin (2013)

  18. Cook, T.D.: Emergent principles for the design, implementation, and analysis of cluster-based experiments in social science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 599(1), 176–198 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F.: Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53(2), 171–193 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Golafshani, N.: Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual. Rep. 8(4), 597–606 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harzing, A.-W.: Google Scholar-A New Data Source for Citation Analysis. University of Melbourne, Parkville (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Holbrook, J.B., Barr, K.R., Brown, K.W.: Research impact: we need negative metrics too. Nature 497(7450), 439–439 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holzinger, A.: Universal access to technology-enhanced learning. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(4), 195–197 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacsó, P.: Google scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Inf. Rev. 29(2), 208–214 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Khambatti, M., Ryu, K.D., Dasgupta, P.: Structuring peer-to-peer networks using interest-based communities. In: Aberer, K., Koubarakis, M., Kalogeraki, V. (eds.) Databases, Information Systems, and Peer-to-Peer Computing, pp. 48–63. Springer, Berlin (2004)

  27. McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H., Patil, D.J., Barton, D.: Big data. The management revolution. Harvard Bus Rev 90(10), 61–67 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meho, L.I., Yang, K.: Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: web of science versus scopus and google scholar. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(13), 2105–2125 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murugesan, S.: Understanding web 2.0. IT Prof. 9(4), 34–41 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Neuman, W.L.: Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, vol. 13. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  31. O’reilly, T.: What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun. Strateg. 65(1), 17 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pileggi, S.F., Fernandez-Llatas, C., Traver, V.: When the social meets the semantic: social semantic web or web 2.5. Future Internet 4(3), 852–864 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sanchez, C.A., Wiley, J., Goldman, S.R.: Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during internet research tasks. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 662–666. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2006)

  34. Serenko, A., Bontis, N.: Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings. Knowl. Process Manag. 11(3), 185–198 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Skyrms, B., Pemantle, R.: A dynamic model of social network formation. In: Gross, T., Sayama, H. (eds.) Adaptive Networks, pp. 231–251. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  36. Stephanidis, C., Savidis, A.: Universal access in the information society: methods, tools, and interaction technologies. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 1(1), 40–55 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., Shen, R.: Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 705–714. ACM (2008)

  38. Xiang, R., Neville, J., Rogati, M.: Modeling relationship strength in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World wide web, pp. 981–990. ACM (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the survey participants who have provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Salvatore F. Pileggi

Authors
  1. Salvatore F. Pileggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore F. Pileggi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pileggi, S.F. Looking deeper into academic citations through network analysis: popularity, influence and impact. Univ Access Inf Soc 17, 541–548 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0565-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0565-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation