Black (2012), using a novel citation-type analysis, identified the most frequently cited journals in forensic psychology. The article prompted two pedagogic concerns: the lack of coverage regarding the attributes and limitations of currently available features of citation operations in major databases, and on the expository level, in addressing a specialist vs generalist audience. The current paper addresses these issues and concludes that databases that offer citation options rely on different methods, coverage, and transparency of functions, there can be much variance in citation-search findings based on the type of analysis performed, and the field of bibliometrics is advancing at a torrid pace. Based on these concerns, citation-based findings would best be considered exploratory in nature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguilloI. F. (2012) Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 343–351.
2.
AksnesD. W.RipA. (2009) Researchers' perceptions of citations. Research Policy, 38, 895–905.
3.
Bar-IlanJ. (2008a) Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century: a review. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 1–52.
4.
Bar-IlanJ. (2008b) Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, 257–271.
BornmannL.MutzR.HugS. E.Hans-DieterD. (2011) A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 346–359.
7.
BornmannL.SchierH.MarxW.Hans-DieterD. (2012) What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?Journal of Informetrics, 6, 11–18.
8.
BrandA. (1979) Searching multiple indexes and databases in the behavioral sciences: which and how many?Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 1, 105–112.
9.
CarletonR. N.ParkersonH. A.HorswillS. C. (2012) Assessing the publication productivity of clinical psychology professors in Canadian Psychological Association-accredited Canadian psychology departments. Canadian Psychology, 53, 226–237.
10.
CothranT. (2011) Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: a quantitative study. Library & Information Science Research, 33, 293–301.
11.
De BellisN. (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis. New York: Scarecrow Press.
12.
DronJ. (2012) The pedagogical-technological divide and the elephant in the room. International Journal on E-Learning, 11(1), 23–38.
13.
FalagasM. E.PitsouniE. I.MalietzisG. A.PappasG. (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338–342.
14.
FranceschetM. (2010) The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 55–63.
15.
Garcia-PerezM. A. (2010) Accuracy and completeness of publication records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: a case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2070–2085.
16.
HarwoodN. (2009) An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497–518.
17.
HeartherN. K. (2010) Finally ready for prime time? Citation research. Searcher, 18(6), 1–30.
18.
JascoP. (2005) Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29, 208–214.
19.
KoushaK.ThewallM. (2007) The Web impact of open access social science research. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 495–507.
20.
KoushaK.ThelwallM. (2008) Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: a comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74, 273–294.
21.
MehoL.YangK. (2007) A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
22.
PerdueB.PiotrowskiC. (2003) Citation searching: a new feature in PsycINFO. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3), 1237–1238.
23.
PerdueB.PiotrowskiC. (2004) Cited author searching: implications for instruction in forensic psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 220–222.
24.
PiotrowskiC. (2007) Sources of scholarly and professional literature in psychology and management. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 75–84.
25.
PiotrowskiC. (2012) Top cited journals in forensic psychology: an analysis of the psychological literature. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 30(2), 29–37.
26.
PiotrowskiC.PerdueB. (1986) On-line literature retrieval: an alternative research strategy. Teaching of Psychology, 13(3), 153–154.
PiotrowskiC.PerdueB. (2003) Benefits of multi-database searching: a forensic case study. Psychological Reports, 92(3), 881–882.
29.
PiotrowskiC.VodanovichS. J. (2004) Is web-based instruction popular in psychology?Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 727–732.
30.
ReedJ. G.BaxterP. (2003) Library use: handbook for psychology. (3rd ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31.
SaadG. (2006) Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 69, 117–120.
32.
SchroederR. (2007) Pointing users toward citation searching: using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(2), 243–248.
33.
VaughanL.ShawD. (2008) A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317–330.
34.
VodanovichS. J.PiotrowskiC. (2001) Internet-based instruction: a national survey of psychology faculty. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(4), 253–255.
35.
ZhangL. (2007) Citation analysis for collection development: a study of international relations journal literature. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 31, 195–207.
