Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK
dc.contributor.author | Kousha, Kayvan | |
dc.contributor.author | Thelwall, Mike | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-03-06T13:03:21Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-03-06T13:03:21Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-06-25 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M. (2020) Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK, Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), pp. 479-504. | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 2641-3337 | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1162/qss_a_00042 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2436/623126 | |
dc.description | © 2020 The Authors. Published by [Name of Publisher]. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00042 | en |
dc.description.abstract | A research doctorate normally culminates in publishing a dissertation reporting a substantial body of novel work. In the absence of a suitable citation index, this article explores the relative merits of alternative methods for the large-scale assessment of dissertation impact, using 150,740 UK doctoral dissertations from 2009-2018. Systematic methods for this were designed for Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Mendeley. Less than 1 in 8 UK doctoral dissertations had at least one Scopus (12%), Microsoft Academic (11%) or Google Books citation (9%), or at least one Mendeley reader (5%). These percentages varied substantially by subject area and publication year. Google Books citations were more common in the Arts and Humanities (18%), whereas Scopus and Microsoft Academic citations were more numerous in Engineering (24%). In the Social Sciences, Google Books (13%) and Scopus (12%) citations were important and in Medical Sciences, Scopus and Microsoft Academic citations to dissertations were rare (6%). Few dissertations had Mendeley readers (from 3% in Science to 8% in the Social Sciences) and further analysis suggests that Google Scholar finds more citations but does not report information about all dissertations within a repository and is not a practical tool for large-scale impact assessment. | en |
dc.format | application/pdf | en |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | MIT Press | en |
dc.relation.url | https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/qss_a_00042 | en |
dc.subject | dissertations | en |
dc.subject | Impact assessment | en |
dc.subject | Google Books | en |
dc.subject | Scopus | en |
dc.subject | Microsoft Academic | en |
dc.subject | Mendeley | en |
dc.title | Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK | en |
dc.type | Journal article | en |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2641-3337 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Quantitative Science Studies | en |
dc.date.updated | 2020-03-04T19:02:19Z | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-03-01 | |
rioxxterms.funder | University of Wolverhampton | en |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | UOW06032020KK | en |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2020-06-25 | en |
dc.source.volume | 1 | |
dc.source.issue | 2 | |
dc.source.beginpage | 479 | |
dc.source.endpage | 504 | |
refterms.dateFCD | 2020-03-06T13:02:44Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2020-03-06T13:03:21Z |