Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Posted 03-15-2010 13:51

    Colleagues,

     

    I was hoping you could share your school's practice regarding the source of citation data used in promotion cases.  Up until last year, we used only ISI data (through the Web of Knowledge interface), although external letter writers used both ISI and Google Scholar numbers in their evaluations.  This year we are using a blend of Google Scholar (with the Publish or Perish interface) and ISI – as a footnote, you might be surprised to know that there is not complete overlap between Google Scholar and ISI (I think most scholars assume that ISI is a small subset of Google Scholar, and that Google Scholar captures all ISI cites).  As you know, Google Scholar will generate somewhere between two and 10-times the citation count that might be found with ISI.

     

    What source of citation data does your school use?  If you use Google Scholar, do you only use the cites for the published work, or do you add in cites for prior working and conference papers?  Any info regarding your practice would be welcome.

     

    Thanks and regards, Mason A. Carpenter

    University of Wisconsin-Madison

     



  • 2.  Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Posted 03-15-2010 20:48
    Mason

    We have no hard rule here.   Increasingly people report both ISI and the entire "publish or perish" count.

    mark
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Mason Carpenter [mcarpenter@BUS.WISC.EDU]
    Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 12:50 PM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Colleagues,

     

    I was hoping you could share your school's practice regarding the source of citation data used in promotion cases.  Up until last year, we used only ISI data (through the Web of Knowledge interface), although external letter writers used both ISI and Google Scholar numbers in their evaluations.  This year we are using a blend of Google Scholar (with the Publish or Perish interface) and ISI – as a footnote, you might be surprised to know that there is not complete overlap between Google Scholar and ISI (I think most scholars assume that ISI is a small subset of Google Scholar, and that Google Scholar captures all ISI cites).  As you know, Google Scholar will generate somewhere between two and 10-times the citation count that might be found with ISI.

     

    What source of citation data does your school use?  If you use Google Scholar, do you only use the cites for the published work, or do you add in cites for prior working and conference papers?  Any info regarding your practice would be welcome.

     

    Thanks and regards, Mason A. Carpenter

    University of Wisconsin-Madison

     



  • 3.  Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Posted 03-15-2010 22:47
    Dear Mason,

    Although my university is flexible and the onus is on the individual faculty member to
    "prove" scholarship, Cabells Directory is useful for providing acceptance rates of journals
    (although these are self-reported by the journals themselves). Clearly, however, this does
    not provide any indication of impact factor but does rudimentarily show whether faculty are
    publishing in higher or lower quality journals as measured by acceptance rates.

    Cordially,
    Scott Droege

    On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:50:54 -0500
    Mason Carpenter <mcarpenter@BUS.WISC.EDU> wrote:
    > Colleagues,
    >
    >
    >
    > I was hoping you could share your school's practice regarding the source of
    > citation data used in promotion cases. Up until last year, we used only ISI
    > data (through the Web of Knowledge interface), although external letter
    > writers used both ISI and Google Scholar numbers in their evaluations. This
    > year we are using a blend of Google Scholar (with the Publish or Perish
    > interface) and ISI - as a footnote, you might be surprised to know that
    > there is not complete overlap between Google Scholar and ISI (I think most
    > scholars assume that ISI is a small subset of Google Scholar, and that
    > Google Scholar captures all ISI cites). As you know, Google Scholar will
    > generate somewhere between two and 10-times the citation count that might be
    > found with ISI.
    >
    >
    >
    > What source of citation data does your school use? If you use Google
    > Scholar, do you only use the cites for the published work, or do you add in
    > cites for prior working and conference papers? Any info regarding your
    > practice would be welcome.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks and regards, Mason A. Carpenter
    >
    > University of Wisconsin-Madison
    >
    >
    >

    ________________________________
    Scott Droege, Ph.D.
    Western Kentucky University
    Gordon Ford College of Business
    Department of Management
    www.scott-droege.com


  • 4.  Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Posted 03-16-2010 03:12

    At our institution, ISI is still considered the "gold standard," which probably works to the advantage of those in the field of management.  I say that because Google Scholar picks up citations in books, conference and working papers, and citations in journals not included in ISI (as well as many non-English journals).  Strategy scholars and editors of management journals need to do a better job of disseminating working papers and published works through outlets such as RePec (http://repec.org/) and SSRN (http://www.ssrn.com/mrn/index.html).  For example, only a few management journals are listed in RePec, which is unfortunate.  I have been encouraging our faculty to create their own SSRN webpages.   Another factor in moving from ISI to Google Scholar is cost, since the latter is "free." Therefore, it is probably inevitable that most universities will move in that direction (in addition to the fact that Google Scholar is more "inclusive"). 

    ----------------------------------------------
    Dr. Donald S. Siegel
    Dean and Professor
    School of Business
    University at Albany, SUNY
    1400 Washington Avenue
    Albany, NY 12222
    http://www.albany.edu/business/
    http://www.albany.edu/business/faculty_siegel.shtml
    http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/psi32.htm
    http://ssrn.com/author=33607





    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List on behalf of Mason Carpenter
    Sent: Mon 2010.03.15 13:50
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Question about sources for citation count data in tenure and promotion cases

    Colleagues,



    I was hoping you could share your school's practice regarding the source of citation data used in promotion cases.  Up until last year, we used only ISI data (through the Web of Knowledge interface), although external letter writers used both ISI and Google Scholar numbers in their evaluations.  This year we are using a blend of Google Scholar (with the Publish or Perish interface) and ISI - as a footnote, you might be surprised to know that there is not complete overlap between Google Scholar and ISI (I think most scholars assume that ISI is a small subset of Google Scholar, and that Google Scholar captures all ISI cites).  As you know, Google Scholar will generate somewhere between two and 10-times the citation count that might be found with ISI.



    What source of citation data does your school use?  If you use Google Scholar, do you only use the cites for the published work, or do you add in cites for prior working and conference papers?  Any info regarding your practice would be welcome.



    Thanks and regards, Mason A. Carpenter

    University of Wisconsin-Madison