A bibliometric study of video retrieval evaluation benchmarking (TRECVid) : a methodological analysis
|Title:||A bibliometric study of video retrieval evaluation benchmarking (TRECVid) : a methodological analysis||Authors:||Thornley, Clare V.; McLoughlin, Shane J.; Johnson, Andrea C.; Smeaton, Alan F.||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3038||Date:||19-Dec-2011||Online since:||2011-07-25T13:24:19Z||Abstract:||This paper provides a discussion and analysis of methodological issues encountered during a scholarly impact and bibliometric study within the field of computer science (TRECVid Text Retrieval and Evaluation Conference, Video Retrieval Evaluation). The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection and analysis of the methods used to provide useful information and guidance for those who may wish to undertake similar studies, and is of particular relevance for the academic disciplines which have publication and citation norms that may not perform well using traditional tools. Scopus and Google Scholar are discussed and a detailed comparison of the effects of different search methods and cleaning methods within and between these tools for subject and author analysis is provided. The additional database capabilities and usefulness of “Scopus More” in addition to “Scopus General” is discussed and evaluated. Scopus paper coverage is found to favourably compare to Google Scholar but Scholar consistently has superior performance at finding citations to those papers. These additional citations significantly increase the citation totals and also change the relative ranking of papers. Publish or Perish (PoP), a software wrapper for Google Scholar, is also examined and its limitations and some possible solutions are described. Data cleaning methods, including duplicate checks, expert domain checking of bibliographic data, and content checking of retrieved papers are compared and their relative effects on paper and citation count discussed. Google Scholar and Scopus are also compared as tools for collecting bibliographic data for visualisations of developing trends and, due to the comparative ease of collecting abstracts, Scopus is found far more effective.||Funding Details:||Not applicable||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Sage||Journal:||Journal of Information Science||Volume:||37||Issue:||6||Start page:||577||End page:||593||Copyright (published version):||2011 The authors||Keywords:||Bibliometrics; Video retrieval; Research evaluation; Scholarly impact; Computer science; Citation analysis||Subject LCSH:||Bibliometrics
|Other versions:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551511420032||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed|
|Appears in Collections:||CLARITY Research Collection|
Information and Communication Studies Research Collection
Show full item record
Page view(s) 15,937
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.