 | The RSS feed for this author will notify you of all new papers and revisions as soon as they are added to the SSRN eLibrary. |
| Popular RSS readers |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 
|  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[texts]](http://archive.org/images/mediatype_texts.gif) | Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor? - Masood Fooladi, Hadi Salehi, Melor Md Yunus , Maryam Farhadi, Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo, Hadi Farhadi, Nader Ale Ebrahim, Nader Journal impact factor (IF) as a gauge of influence and impact of a particular journal comparing with other journals in the same area of research, reports the mean number of citations to the published articles in particular journal. Although, IF attracts more attention and being used more frequently than other measures, it has been subjected to criticisms, which overcome the advantages of IF. Critically, extensive use of IF may result in destroying editorial and researchers’ behaviour, which co... Keywords:Impact factor (IF); Journal ranking; Criticism; Praise; SCOPUS; Web of science; Self-citation |  |
| A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases - Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo, Hadi Salehi, Melor Md Yunus, Hadi Farhadi, Masood Fooladi, Maryam Farhadi, Nader Ale Ebrahim, Nader Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prest... Keywords:web of science; scopus; database; citations; provenance; coverage; searching; citation tracking; impact factor; indexing; h-index; researcher profile; researcher ID |
Virtual Team Effectiveness: Investigating the Moderating Role of Experience with Computer-Mediated Communication on the Impact of Team Cohesion and OpennessJohn R. Carlson (Department of Information Systems, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA), Dawn S. Carlson (Department of Management, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA), Emily M. Hunter (Department of Management, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA), Randal L. Vaughn (Department of Information Systems, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA) and Joey F. George (SCIS Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA) Volume 25, Issue 2. Copyright © 2013. 18 pages.
Available. Instant access upon order completion. DOI: 10.4018/joeuc.2013040101 Source title: Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC)  | ||||
Top AbstractThe work of virtual teams is increasingly important to today’s organizations, work that is accomplished predominantly via computer-mediated communication. The authors investigate the moderating role of experience with instant messaging on the team interpersonal processes (cohesion and openness) to team effectiveness relationship in virtual teams. Data were obtained from 365 virtual team members using survey methodology and analyzed using hierarchical moderated regression and multilevel analyses. They found that team cohesion has a main effect on team effectiveness. Team openness has a main effect and is moderated by experience with instant messaging, i.e., strengthens the relationship. Understanding the role of team interpersonal processes and the role of the communication media will allow managers to more effectively build virtual teams and provide effective training and support. Using the theoretical lens of channel expansion theory the authors expand theoretical, empirical and practical knowledge of this area. | ||||
| PDF MPRA_paper_46899.pdf Download (357Kb) | Preview |
| Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
|---|---|
| Original Title: | Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor? |
| English Title: | Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor? |
| Language: | English |
| Keywords: | Impact factor (IF), Journal ranking, Criticism, Praise, SCOPUS, Web of science, Self-citation |
| Subjects: | I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I0 - General I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I21 - Analysis of Education I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I25 - Education and Economic Development I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I29 - Other O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General P - Economic Systems > P0 - General P - Economic Systems > P0 - General > P00 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification |
| Item ID: | 46899 |
| Depositing User: | Nader Ale Ebrahim |
| Date Deposited: | 11. May 2013 07:46 |
| Last Modified: | 11. May 2013 07:57 |
| References: | Andersen, J., Belmont, J., & Cho, C. T. (2006). Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature, Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 39, 436-443. Arnold, D. N., & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434-437. Baum, J. A. C. (2011). Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the impact factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies. Organization, 18(4), 449-466. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals, College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314-316. Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status, Scientometrics, 69(3), 669-687. Dong, P., Loh, M., & Mondry, A. (2005). The impact factor revisited, Biomedical Digital Libraries, 2. European Association of Science Editors (EASE). (2010). Statement on inappropriate use of impact factors. Retrieved from http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement Falagas, M. E., & Alexiou, V. G. (2007). Editors may inappropriately influence authors’ decisions regarding selection of references in scientific articles. International Journal of Impotence Research, 19, 443-445 Falagas, M. E., & Kavvadia, P. (2006). Eigenlob: Self-citation in biomedical journals. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal, 20, 1039-1042 Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal, 22(8), 2623-2628. Fassoulaki, A., Papilas, K., Paraskeva, A., & Patris, K. (2002). Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 46, 902-905. Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313, 411-413. Garfield, E. (1998). Der impact faktor und seine richtige anwendung. Der Unfallchirurg, 101(6), 413-414. Garner, R., Lunin, L., & Baker, L. (1967). Three Drexel information science research studies. Madison: Drexel Press. Giles, C. L., Bollacker, K. D., & Lawrence, S. (1998). An automatic citation indexing system, Digital Libraries 98- Third ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, New York, 89-98. Greenwood, D. C. (2007). Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(48), 1-6. Hemmingsson, A., Mygind, T., Skjennald, A., & Edgren, J. (2002). Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. American Journal of Roentgenology, 178(3), 767-767. Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research. (2008, June 12). Citation Statistics, 1-26. Khan, & Hegde, (2009). Is impact factor true evaluation for ranking quality measure? Journal of Library & Information Technology, 29(3), 55-58. |
| URI: | http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/46899 |
| PDF MPRA_paper_46898.pdf Download (672Kb) | Preview |
| Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
|---|---|
| Original Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| English Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| Language: | English |
| Keywords: | web of science, scopus, database, citations, provenance, coverage, searching, citation tracking, impact factor, indexing, h-index, researcher profile, researcher ID |
| Subjects: | I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I0 - General I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I23 - Higher Education Research Institutions O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z18 - Public Policy |
| Item ID: | 46898 |
| Depositing User: | Nader Ale Ebrahim |
| Date Deposited: | 11. May 2013 07:46 |
| Last Modified: | 11. May 2013 07:57 |
| References: | Abrizah, A., Zainab, A., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. (2012). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics. Bakkalbassi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7). Retrieved from http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? – A comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271. Bar-Ilan, J. Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigen factor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314-316. Boyle, F., & Sherman, D. (2006). Scopus: The product and its development. The Serials Librarian, 49(3), 147-153. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1). Chou, P. N. (2012). A Comparison Study of Impact Factor in Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Engineering Education and Educational Technology Journals. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 187-194. Deis, L., & Goodman, D. (2005). Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 Dess, H. M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 45 (Winter). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9. Escalona Fernández, M. I., Lagar Barbosa, P., & Pulgarín Guerrero, A. (2010). Web of Science Vs. Scopus: un estudio cuantitativo en ingeniería química. Anales de Documentación, 13, 159-175. Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8), 2623-2628. Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 48(Fall). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93. Gary, E., & Hodkinson, S. Z. (2008). Comparison of journal citation reports and Scopus impact factors for ecology and environmental sciences journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 54. Glanzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., & Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 68(3), 457-473. Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351-362. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547. Kulkarni, A. V. Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citation in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302, 1092-1096. |
| URI: | http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/46898 |
Nowadays, the worlds scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.
Nowadays, the worlds scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.
| PDF MPRA_paper_46898.pdf Download (672Kb) | Preview |
| Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
|---|---|
| Original Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| English Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| Language: | English |
| Keywords: | web of science, scopus, database, citations, provenance, coverage, searching, citation tracking, impact factor, indexing, h-index, researcher profile, researcher ID |
| Subjects: | I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I0 - General I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I23 - Higher Education Research Institutions O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z18 - Public Policy |
| Item ID: | 46898 |
| Depositing User: | Nader Ale Ebrahim |
| Date Deposited: | 11. May 2013 07:46 |
| Last Modified: | 11. May 2013 07:57 |
| References: | Abrizah, A., Zainab, A., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. (2012). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics. Bakkalbassi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7). Retrieved from http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? – A comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271. Bar-Ilan, J. Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigen factor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314-316. Boyle, F., & Sherman, D. (2006). Scopus: The product and its development. The Serials Librarian, 49(3), 147-153. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1). Chou, P. N. (2012). A Comparison Study of Impact Factor in Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Engineering Education and Educational Technology Journals. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 187-194. Deis, L., & Goodman, D. (2005). Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 Dess, H. M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 45 (Winter). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9. Escalona Fernández, M. I., Lagar Barbosa, P., & Pulgarín Guerrero, A. (2010). Web of Science Vs. Scopus: un estudio cuantitativo en ingeniería química. Anales de Documentación, 13, 159-175. Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8), 2623-2628. Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 48(Fall). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93. Gary, E., & Hodkinson, S. Z. (2008). Comparison of journal citation reports and Scopus impact factors for ecology and environmental sciences journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 54. Glanzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., & Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 68(3), 457-473. Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351-362. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547. Kulkarni, A. V. Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citation in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302, 1092-1096. |
| URI: | http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/46898 |
 | View Item |
| Search Results | ||||||||
| Results: 1 through 3 of 3 (0.003 secs) You searched for: collection:opensource AND subject:"Web of science" | Advanced search | |||||||
| ||||||||
/ Author-provided URL : 
구매하기
상세서지
