Talk:Citation index

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Historicographs[edit]

Hi - in the phrase "Garfield and Sher demonstrated the potential for generating historiographs", the word "historiographs" is a link but it goes to a generic page about historiography, not to more information about historiographs. Can anyone help fix that? --dan 193.60.248.178 13:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup tag[edit]

I believe that my adding of the referencing section, the use of newer modes of reference and the addition of the History section has addressed the cleanup issue for this page. If someone else has another opinion, I request that it be expressed on this Talk page rather than by adding another obscure clean-up tag. --Ben Best 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

I've tried to update and clarify some product names, referencess and desscriptions. It will undoubtedly be necessary to repeat this every half-year or so. Please also look at the pages for impact factor, which has considerable duplication. DGG 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"very expensive"[edit]

Yes, "very expensive" was not a good phrase, because it is imprecise, I know approximately what they cost different size libraries , and can state a numerical range, but it's a wide range --$20,000-$200,000/yr depending on size of library.(that's why I used such a general term) There's 1 usable exact datapoint at [www.library.unr.edu/subjects/scopus.html] . (I dont want to quote this partic one even tho its PD, because the author shouldn't have used exact figures in a publicly-accessible place.)
I am going put in something a little more informative until I can figure out something better. I dont think its POV, btw, becaus I do not think anyone including their producers would say that they were not extremely expensive. They simply say that it's worth it. If anyone is still unhappy let me know. DGG 07:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My current attempt at wording is

"WOK and Scopus are among the highest-cost subscription databases;" That gives some context. But possibly I need to give some kind of range-finding for people who may think very expensive equals$1,000. Can you think of any pithy wording for here? The real message is, that in comparison with the past, there's a free alternative.

This is neither the article on the individual databases, nor the general one on online databases. I will try to say something more helpful in the database article, where I will try to explain the general options for pricing, and gve a range, perhaps in a table format. And then I'll put in a link from this page to that section.

DGG 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new indexes[edit]

There are a few new indexes around. As it is not clear yet whether they'll have any staying power, I have not added them to the article, but just wanted to draw the communitie's attention to them: http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php SCImago] and eigenfactor.org. There is also getCITED, which has already a Wikipedia article. --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count and those who can't.[edit]

"There are two general-purpose academic citation indexes:

[1] ISI (now part of Thomson Scientific) publishes the ISI citation indexes in print and compact disc. They are now generally accessed through the Web under the name Web of Science, which is in turn part of the group of databases in the Web of Knowledge.
[2]Elsevier publishes Scopus, available online only, which similarly combines subject searching with citation browsing and tracking in the sciences and social sciences.

Each of these offer an index of citations between publications and a mechanism to establish which documents cite which other documents. They differ widely in cost: the ISI databases and Scopus are available by subscription (generally to libraries); [3?] CiteSeer and [4?]Google Scholar are freely available online."

If the last two aren't "general-purpose academic citation indexes," then before their being introduced in comparison, they should be identified as to what they are.

Thanks. I've adjusted the wording. Does that fix it? TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does.

the first citations?[edit]

Weinberg, B. H. Predecessor of Scientific Indexing Structures in the Domain of Religion. Second Conference on the History and Heritage of Scientific and Technical Information Systems, p. 126-134 (2004). presents claims for the first citation systems being religions in ~1200, and suggests Raymonds Reports (1743) as the first legal citation system. This throws some doubt on the claim in the start of this article of citations starting in the 1800s.

Crimchyet (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit... we welcome you to incorporate the information in that paper in the body of the article. Or maybe some other editor will take advantage of this source. --Macrakis (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some material from Weinberg on the Hebrew citation indexes and from Shapiro on the English legal citation indexes. Thanks again for pointing out this literature. --Macrakis (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved over from Open access[edit]

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Open access was copied or moved into Citation index with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I've moved over a couple of sections from the open access page, witten by nemo bis since I think it fits here better in a #criticism section here than it did at its previous location (discussion). It probably still needs a bit of editing for tone and consistency with the rest of the page. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs some work[edit]

The last paragraph of the History section seems to conflict with the prior statements by claiming that the "first true citation index" was published in 1860. What were the prior examples? Untrue indexes? Why is Labatt's Table a "true index"? I think that this section could benefit from a little more context and clarification. Perhaps, for example, Labatt's Table of Cases is the first citation index of legal cases the US? Jaireeodell (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]