Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases

doi:10.3832/ifor0613-005

Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 101-107 (2012)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0613-005
Published: May 30, 2012 - Copyright © 2012 SISEF

Short Communications

PDF Version

Full Text

Citation

For long time a quantitative assessment of the productivity of Italian researchers has been lacking; the first and unique assessment was the Three-Year Research Evaluation for the period 2001-2003. Italian Law 240/2010, ruling the organization of research and universities, requires a system for the evaluation of the scientific productivity of Italian researchers. In 2011, both the National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR) and the National University Council (CUN) proposed a set of evaluation criteria based on a bibliometric approach with indexes calculated using the information from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS) or the Elsevier SciVerse SCOPUS databases. The aim of this study is twofold: (i) to present the results of an assessment of the global aggregated scientific productivity of the Italian forestry community for 1996-2010 using the SCOPUS data available from the on-line SCIMAGO system; and (ii) to compare the WOS and SCOPUS databases with respect to three indexes (number of publications, number of citations, h-index) of the scientific productivity for university forest researchers in Italy. Two subcategories of forestry were considered: AGR05 - forest management and silviculture, and AGR06 - wood technology. Out of a total of 84 authors, 76 were considered in the analysis because not affected by unresolved homonymity or duplication. Overall, the trend in scientific productivity for Italian forestry is promising. Italy ranked 10^th in terms of the h-index with an increasing trend in importance relative to other European countries, though the scientific contribution of authors was largely heterogeneous. Both WOS and SCOPUS databases were suitable sources of information for evaluating the scientific productivity of Italian authors. Although the two databases did not produce meaningful differences for any of the three indexes, the advantages and disadvantages of the two sources must be carefully considered if used operationally to evaluate the Italian scientific productivity.

Keywords

Scientific Evaluation, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, SCIMAGO

Authors’ address

(1)

ECOGEOFOR - Laboratorio di Ecologia e Geomatica Forestale, Dipartimento di SBioscenze e Territorio, Università degli Studi del Molise, c.da Fonte Lappone snc, I-86090 Pesche (Isernia - Italy)

Corresponding author

G Chirici
gherardo.chirici@unimol.it

Citation

Chirici G (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. iForest 5: 101-107. - doi: 10.3832/ifor0613-005

Academic Editor

Marco Borghetti

Paper history

Received: Feb 08, 2012
Accepted: Apr 19, 2012

First online: May 30, 2012
Publication Date: Jun 29, 2012
Publication Time: 1.37 months

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 30169
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 23351
Abstract Page Views: 1145
PDF Downloads: 4210
Citation/Reference Downloads: 81
XML Downloads: 1382

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 4341
Overall contacts: 30169
Avg. contacts per week: 48.65

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Nov 2020)

Total number of cites (since 2012): 13
Average cites per year: 1.44

(no Plumx Metrics available for this paper)

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ^©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

(1)

Abramo G, D’Angelo C, Viel F (2011)
The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy. Scientometrics 88 (2): 599-615.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(2)

Abramo G, D’Angelo C (2011a)
Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 87 (3): 499-514.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(3)

Abramo G, D’Angelo C (2011b)
National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics 86 (2): 347-364.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(4)

Aguillo IF (2011)
Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(5)

ANVUR (2011)
Criteri e parametri di valutazione dei candidati e dei commissari dell’abilitazione scientifica nazionale. Consiglio Direttivo Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca, 22 giugno 2011, Rome, Italy.
Gscholar

(6)

Aksnes DW, Taxt RE (2004)
Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation 13 (1): 33-41.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(7)

Bar-Ilan J (2007)
Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 (2): 257-271.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(8)

Bar-Ilan J (2010)
Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82 (3): 495-506.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(9)

Bakkalbasi 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.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(10)

Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N (2005)
An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11 (9).
CrossRef | Gscholar

(11)

CUN (2011)
Proposta su “criteri e parametri per la valutazione” ai fini di cui all’Art 16 comma 3 lettere a) e h) della Legge 30 Dicembre 2010, n. 240. Consiglio Universitario Nazionale, prot. 786 del 09/06/2011, Rome, Italy.
Gscholar

(12)

Darario C, Moed HF (2011)
Is Italian science declining? Research Policy 40 (10): 1380-1392.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(13)

Garcia-Perez MA (2010)
Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation 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.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(14)

Garfield E (1955)
Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122 (3159): 108-111.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(15)

Garfield E (1972)
Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 (4060): 471-479.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(16)

Glänzel W (1996)
The needs for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics 35 (2): 167-176.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(17)

González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F (2010)
A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4: 379-391.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(18)

Gurney T, Horlings E, van den Besselaar P (2011)
Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators. Scientometrics 91 (2): 435-449.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(19)

Hirsch JE (2005)
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102 (46): 16569-16572.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(20)

Kostoff RN (1996)
Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics 36 (3): 281-292.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(21)

Jacsó 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: 1537-1547.
Gscholar

(22)

Jacsó P (2006)
Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review 30 (3): 297-309.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(23)

Judit BI (2008)
Informetrics at the beginning of the 21^st century. A review. Journal of Informetrics 2 (1): 1-52.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(24)

Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM (2010)
Citation analysis: comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3): 196-217.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(25)

Lu K, Wolfram D (2010)
Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987-2008. Journal of Informetrics 4: 591-601.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(26)

MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR (1996)
Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36 (3): 435-444.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(27)

Martin BR (1996)
The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36 (3): 343-362.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(28)

Meho L, Yang K (2007)
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus SCOPUS and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105-2125.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(29)

Mikki S (2010)
Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics 82 (2): 321-331.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(30)

MIUR (2011)
Cerca Università. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Rome, Italy.
Online | Gscholar

(31)

Nagpaul PS (1995)
Quasi-quantitative measures of research performance: an assessment of construct validity and reliability. Scientometrics 33 (2): 169-185.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(32)

Narin F (1976)
Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA, pp. 456.
Gscholar

(33)

Scimago (2007)
SJR - Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Web site.
Online | Gscholar

(34)

Seglen PO (1998)
Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 69 (3): 224-229.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(35)

So CYK (1998)
Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: effects of research specialty size and individual prominence. Scientometrics 41 (3): 325-333.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(36)

Spearman C (1904)
The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15: 72-101.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(37)

van Raan AFJ (2000)
The Pandora’s box of citation analysis: measuring scientific excellence’the last evil? In: “The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield” (Cronin B, Atkins HB eds). Information Today, Medford, NJ, USA, pp. 301-319.
Gscholar

(38)

VTR (2006)
Italian Triennial Research Evaluation - VTR 2001-2003. Risultati delle valutazioni dei Panel di Area. Web Site.
Online | Gscholar

(39)

Wilcoxon F (1945)
Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83.
CrossRef | Gscholar

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

Contents

Search

Journal Info

Journal Subjects and Fields

For Authors

For Reviewers

For Readers

SISEF Publishing

Search iForest Contents