Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring prestigious citations sourced from top universities in bibliometrics and altmetrics: a case study in the computer science discipline

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Citation count is an important indicator for measuring research outputs. There have been numerous studies that have investigated factors affecting citation counts from the perspectives of cited papers and citing papers. In this paper, we focused specifically on citing papers and explored citations sourced from prestigious affiliations in the computer science discipline. The QS World University Rankings was employed to identify prestigious citations, named QS citations. We used the Microsoft Academic Graph, a massive scholarly dataset, and conducted different kinds of analysis between papers with QS citations and those without QS citations. We discovered that papers with QS citations are generally associated with higher total citation counts than those without QS citations. We extended the analysis to authors and journals, and the results indicated that when authors or journals have higher proportions of papers with QS citations, they are usually associated with higher values of the H-index or the Journal Impact Factor respectively. Additionally, papers with QS citations are also associated with a higher Altmetric Attention Score and a higher number of specific types of altmetrics such as tweet counts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  2. http://www.altmetric.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  3. http://www.shanghairanking.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  4. http://www.leidenranking.com. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  5. http://dblp.uni-trier.de. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  6. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2015/computer-science-information-systems. Accessed 25 September 2017.

  7. Calculation of 5-year impact factor: http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/. Accessed 25 September 2017.

References

  • Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brizan, D. G., Gallagher, K., Jahangir, A., & Brown, T. (2016). Predicting citation patterns: Defining and determining influence. Scientometrics, 108(1), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. L. (2007). On the H-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin’s A-index. Jounrnal of Informetrics, 1(2), 170–177.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Methodology. (2015). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Retrieved from http://www.leidenranking.com/Content/CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015.pdf.

  • Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing and Management, 47(1), 80–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L., et al. (2016). A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 200–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. J., & Theng, Y. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyer, L. (2014). Robust rankings review of multivariate assessments illustrated by the Shanghai rakings. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1313-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanovic, D., & Ho, Y. (2016). Highly cited articles in the information science and library science category in social science citation index: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khor, K. A., & Yu, L. (2016). Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1095–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1327–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2011). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1146–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malesios, C. (2015). Some variations on the standard theoretical models for the h-index: A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2384–2388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/493159a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., & Ding, J. (2016). Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 1009–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., et al. (2015). An overview of microsoft academic service (MAS) and applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742839.

  • Slyder, J. B., Stein, B. R., Sams, B. S., et al. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.06.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2016). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R., Visser, M., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. D., Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2010). The Eigenfactor Metrics™: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries, 71(3), 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2010). Weighted citation: An indicator of an article’s prestige. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1635–1643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2011). Institutional interactions: Exploring social, cognitive, and geographic relationships between institutions as demonstrated through citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1498–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T., Yu, G., Li, P., et al. (2014). Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regressionanalysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233–1252.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Science of Research, Innovation and Enterprise programme (SRIE Award No. NRF2014-NRF-SRIE001-019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Feiheng Luo, Mojisola Erdt, Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar & Yin-Leng Theng

  2. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Aixin Sun

Authors
  1. Feiheng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aixin Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mojisola Erdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yin-Leng Theng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feiheng Luo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, F., Sun, A., Erdt, M. et al. Exploring prestigious citations sourced from top universities in bibliometrics and altmetrics: a case study in the computer science discipline. Scientometrics 114, 1–17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2571-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2571-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation