I need help…
Indeed, I need help, and I think you may need it too…
If you are doing research on Technology Enhanced Learning, then do you know
- which of your papers has been cited most often?
- who has cited you most often?
- which papers cited a particular publication of yours?
- whether more and more or less and less people are citing you over the years?
- whose citing behavior is close to yours?
- which conference or journal contains most citations of your papers?
- which conference or journal contains you cite most often?
If google can do a PageRank of every page on the (non-hidden) web, then why can’t we have a CiteRank of every paper in our field? How about making that rank higher for every citation, and more so if the citing paper was itself often cited?
For many of us, these may be “academic questions”, but they are not irrelevant. Citations are the currency of research – a bit like links are the currency of the web. And in some fields, this currency is well managed and accessible to most of the researchers – it seems to me that PubMed acts that way for medicine, and maybe arXiv does for physics.
Of course, general citation indexes like Web of Science are supposed to address this problem, but they are terribly inadequate for our research domain: Web of Science is relatively easy to search, as I can include my affiliation in my search (and I haven’t changed affiliations, which is probably an exception!), but it includes only 13 of my papers and finds only 7 citations of those – though more and more every year, so maybe there is reason to be optimistic🙂
Somewhat more representative for our domain may be citeseer: I am not sure how many of my papers it includes (I can’t seem to search on author?!), but it does find 50 citations to them. This requires browsing through many pages of citations of some paper by some Duval, so this is not very easy to use or process.
DBLP nicely presents a number of different authors whose name resembles mine. It lists 50 of my papers and presents an informative co-author list, but it does not include any information about citations.
Google Scholar seems to include most of my papers and many more references than the previous systems, but there are quite a few doubles and results from (very) gray literature. Also, it is difficult to distinguish self-citations from those by external authors. In a simple exploration, Xavier analysed the google scholar results for our “Metadata Principles and Practicalities” paper: the site mentions 136 references: of which 38 were self references and 10 were unusable, so there were 88 left. Most of those 88 just had the author and the title of the paper (or master thesis or technical report). So, Xavier searched the web and completed the information. As Xavier mentioned to me: “The whole process took me 3 and a half hours and was not fun.”
Bibsonomy claims 235 papers by me, and does not include citation information.
There must be a better way! Maybe you have a suggestion? I can’t believe that all you smart people haven’t come up with a way better approach to managing whom you cite, who cites you, etc…