2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/609614
Title:
Are Wikipedia Citations Important Evidence of the Impact of Scholarly Articles and Books?
Authors:
Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan
Abstract:
Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Whilst citation counts are a recognised indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.
Publisher:
Wiley-Blackwell
Journal:
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Issue Date:
2015
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/609614
DOI:
10.1002/asi.23694
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
2330-1635,
Appears in Collections:
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mikeen
dc.contributor.authorKousha, Kayvanen
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-18T09:57:17Zen
dc.date.available2016-05-18T09:57:17Zen
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.identifier.issn2330-1635,en
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/asi.23694en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/609614en
dc.description.abstractIndividual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Whilst citation counts are a recognised indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.subjectWikipediaen
dc.subjectcitationsen
dc.subjectimpact of scholarly articles and booksen
dc.subjectevidence of the impact of scholarly articles and booksen
dc.titleAre Wikipedia Citations Important Evidence of the Impact of Scholarly Articles and Books?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technologyen
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.