References
- Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93(3), 553–581. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2
- Andersen, J. P., & Nielsen, M. W. (2018). Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 950–959. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.010
- Baird, L.M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20(3), 2–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159402000102
- Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20609
- Calma, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Davies, M. (2019). Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1973– 2018: An analytical retrospective. Scientometrics, 119(2), 879–908. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03080-5
- Chan, K. C., Fung, A., Fung, H. G., & Yah, J. (2016). A citation analysis of business ethics research: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 557–573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2533-9
- Clarivate. (2017). Subject categories (Business; Business, Finance, Economics, Industrial Relations & Labor, and Management). InCites Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved from https://jcr-clarivate-com.du.idm.oclc.org/JCRJournalHomeAction.action
- Dabós, M., Gantman, E., & Fernández Rodríguez, C. (2019). The prestige of social scientists in Spain and France: An examination of their h-index values using Scopus and Google Scholar. Minerva, 57(1), 47–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9358-0
- de Winter, J., Zadpoor, A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
- Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Zeng, J. (2020). Is it a home run? Measuring relative citation rates in accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 34(1), 67–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52570
- Elsevier. (2017). Scopus content coverage guide. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf
- Fagan, J. (2017). An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014-2016: Implications for librarians' practice and research agenda. Information Technology and Libraries, 36(2), 7–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v36i2.9718
- Fagan, J. C., & Willey, M. (2018). The discoverability of award-winning undergraduate research in history: Implications for academic libraries. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(2), 164–186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1456994
- Farhadi, H., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Chadegani, A. A., Farhadi, M., Fooladi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers? Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(4), 198–202.
- Gantman, E. R., & Dabós, M. P. (2018). Research output and impact of the fields of management, economics, and sociology in Spain and France: An analysis using Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(8), 1054–1066. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24020
- Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
- Gil, E. L. (n.d). Google Scholar Profile. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tA9YvCcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
- Google Scholar. (n.d). About Google Scholar. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html
- Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 823–834. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005
- Harzing, A. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7
- Harzing, A. (2016). Microsoft Academic (search): A phoenix arisen from the ashes? Scientometrics, 108(3), 1637–1647. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2026-y
- Harzing, A. (2019). Journal Quality List by Subject Area. Retrieved from https://harzing.com/download/jql2019-07_subject.pdf
- Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2017a). Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics, 110(1), 371–383. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2185-x
- Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2017b). Microsoft Academic is one year old: The phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3
- Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
- Hug, S., & Brändle, M. (2017). The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1551–1571. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3
- Hug, S., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. (2017). Citation analysis with Microsoft Academic. Scientometrics, 111(1), 371–378. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8
- Kumar, S., Kamble, S., & Roy, M. H. (2020). Twenty-five years of Benchmarking: An International Journal (BIJ) A bibliometric overview. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(2), 760–780.
- Levine-Clark, M. (n.d). Google Scholar Profile. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9HNESL8AAAAJ&hl=en
- Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. (2009a). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986–996. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911001954
- Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009b). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802176348
- Lone, F. A. (2016). State of research journals and high quality papers in Islamic finance: Evidence from Scopus and Web of Science. IJABER, 14(4), 9733–9745.
- Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175–2188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9
- Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
- Martindale, T. (2020). More than collection development: Using local citation analysis to begin a career in business librarianship. Collection Management, 45(4), 321–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2020.1715315
- Microsoft Academic. (2020). How is MA different from other academic search indexes? Retrieved from https://academic.microsoft.com/faq?target=ranking1
- Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0
- Mingers, J., Macri, F., & Petrovici, D. (2012). Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management. Information Processing and Management, 48(2), 234–241. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2011.03.009
- Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Ayllon, J. M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). The silent fading of an academic search engine: The case of Microsoft Academic Search. Online Information Review, 38(7), 936–953. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2014-0169
- Siciliano, M. (2017). A citation analysis of business librarianship: Examining the Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship from 1990–2014. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 81–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1285747
- Thelwall, M. (2017). Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1201–1212. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.006
- Thelwall, M. (2018a). Does Microsoft Academic find early citations? Scientometrics, 114(1), 325–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2558-9
- Thelwall, M. (2018b). Can Microsoft Academic be used for citation analysis of preprint archives? The case of the Social Science Research Network. Scientometrics, 115(2), 913–928. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2704-z
- Web of Science Group. (2019). Web of Science Core Collection. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-core-collection/
- Web of Science Group. (2020). Web of Science Core Collection Help. Retrieved from https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_times_cited_count.html
- Xiao, H., Wang, Y., Li, W., & Ma, Z. (2017). Intellectual structure of research in business ethics: A citation and co-citation analysis on. Business Ethics Quarterly. Nankai Business Review International, 8(1), 100–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/nbri-10-2016-0035