Traditional bias toward journals in citation
databases diminishes the perceived value
of conference papers and their authors.
By BJoRn DE SuttER AnD AäRon VAn DEn ooRD
to Be or not
to Be Cited
the SuStaInaBIlIty and nonconformism of conferences
as premier publication venues in computer science is the
subject of intense debate. 3, 4, 17, 18 Evaluating scientists for
promotion and budget allocation involves metrics like
journal impact factors14 and h-indexes7 based on citation
counts retrieved from Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS).
Many computer scientists view the
historical focus of these databases on
journals as a professional disadvantage, even though many conferences
have been included in Scopus since
2004 and WoS since September 2008,
including older ones entered later.
the supposedly reliable Scopus and
WoS include incomplete citation records
for indexed CS journal and conference
Despite the difficulty of automatically
retrieving Google Scholar records, these
records can still be used to correct the
missing records in Scopus and WoS.
Corrected citation counts allow for
much fairer evaluation of CS researchers
and related conferences.
Inclusion of proceedings and
journals in Scopus and WoS is often
viewed as a stamp of approval and relevance. By contrast, databases like CiteSeerX and Google Scholar (GS) also
cover books, technical reports, and
other less-important manuscripts.
Moreover, whereas Scopus and WoS
are generally viewed as providing correct information, GS is known to include erroneous records. 11
Higher citation counts than those
in Scopus and WoS can be obtained
by extending the coverage of a citation count by, say, including citations
of non-indexed publications11 and
by combining databases. 10 Despite
the need to manually cleanse GS records of erroneous and irrelevant records, 2, 5, 10, 11 GS is useful for extending