This thesis concerns the issues of bibliometrics and scientometrics. The first part is dedicated to the science of information measurement, selected citation databases and bibliometric indicators. The practical part is dedicated to the measurement and quantitative analysis of the documents of the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry AS CR in the citation databases of Web of Science and Scopus.

La ansiedad bibliotecaria (AB) es el estado de incertidumbre que experimentan algunos usuarios cuando acuden a la biblioteca, cuyo estudio comenzó en los años 80, pero que carece de un análisis métrico actualizado. El objetivo de este estudio fue hacer un análisis bibliométrico y cienciométrico de los artículos sobre AB indizados en la base de datos Scopus entre 1989 y 2018. Se analizaron 118 publicaciones según indicadores de producción, colaboración, impacto y mapas bibliométricos. Se encontró que las publicaciones sobre AB han aumentado progresivamente, que la colaboración de autores fue baja, que una revista influyente en el área fue Library Review, y que los autores con más impacto fueron Onwuegbuzie y Jiao. Asimismo, destacaron palabras clave sobre la formación del usuario y cuatro frentes de investigación: instrumentos de medición, resultados, marcos teóricos y tipos de unidades de análisis. Dichos resultados sugieren que la AB es un tema fructífero de investigación. / Library anxiety (LA) is the state of uncertainty experienced by some users when they come to the library, the study of which began in the 1980s but lacks updated metric analysis. The objective of this study was to make a bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the articles on LA indexed in the Scopus database between 1989 and 2018. 118 publications were analyzed according to indicators of production, collaboration, impact and bibliometric maps. It was found that publications on LA have progressively increased, that the collaboration of authors was low, that an influential journal in the area was Library Review, and that the authors with the greater impact were Onwuegbuzie and Jiao. Also, keywords on user training and four research fronts were highlighted: measurement instruments, results, theoretical frameworks and types of analysis units. These results suggest that LA is a fruitful research topic. / Revisón por pares

Analisa a produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical nas bases de dados Web of Science e Scopus. Trata-se de um estudo quantitativo com abordagem bibliométrica, cuja coleta foi feita nas bases Web of Science e Scopus, no dia 31 de julho de 2013, buscando-se resultados da produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical. Os resultados mostram que a Scopus apresentou uma média de 12,5% de artigos e 11,2% de periódicos a mais do que a Web of Science. Cerca de 83,6% dos periódicos são os mesmos nas duas bases de dados. Grande parte da produção científica de cada uma está concentrada nesses. A Scopus obteve 27% de citações a mais do que a WoS, embora elas tenham sido superiores apenas na segunda metade do período. O idioma inglês registrou cerca 80% das ocorrências nas duas bases de dados, e os idiomas português e espanhol aparecem em percentuais muito menores, em função do multilinguismo de alguns artigos. A predominância dos periódicos de origem estadunidense (39,3%), inglesa (26,5%) e holandesa (9,1%) fica evidente na pesquisa. A Scopus contabiliza 80% de periódicos brasileiros a mais do que a WoS. Dentro do núcleo de produtividade, localizado pela aplicação da Lei de Bradford, os periódicos brasileiros são responsáveis por 62% da produção científica da área. A dispersão verificada mostrou que a dinâmica entre as duas bases é praticamente idêntica. Cerca de 64% dos periódicos são publicados por instituições públicas, independente do país de origem. Os periódicos em inglês representam 82% do total. Saúde Coletiva (28,8%) e Parasitologia (23%) foram as categorias da Capes mais identificadas dentro da Medicina Tropical. A Scopus contabilizou cerca de 166,8% citações a mais que a WoS, mas a WoS apresenta valores de FI em torno de 58% maiores. Conclui-se que tanto a WoS como a Scopus proporcionam visibilidade à produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical, embora esta seja menor do que a de países com tradição de pesquisa. A indexação influencia a visibilidade da produção científica de diferentes formas. / This research work analyzes the brazilian scientific production of Tropical Medicine in the databases Web of Science and Scopus. The research work employed quantitative methods with bibliometric approach. The collection was made in Web of Science and Scopus, on july 31 of 2013, looking for results about the brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine. Regarding coverage, Scopus showed an average of 12,5% of articles and 11,2% of journals more than WoS. Average 83,6% of journals are commons in the two databases, and the most part of scientific production of each is concentrated them. The Scopus has 27% more citations than WoS, however, was superior only in second half time of period. The English language was accounted with average 80% of registers in the two databases, and the Portuguese and Spanish has smallest percentage, only because the multilingual of many articles. The predominance of the American (39,3%), English (26,5%) and Dutch journals (9,1%) was apparent in the study. The Scopus was account average 80% of brazilian journals more than WoS. Inside productivity nucleus, identified by the application of Bradford’s Law, the brazilian journals are responsible by 62% of scientific production of area. The dispersion was showed that dynamic between two databases is same. Average 64% of the journals are published by public institutions, irrespective of country origin. The English language has 82% of total journals. Collective Health (28,8%) and Parasitology (23%) are the categories of Capes more identified inside Tropical Medicine area. Scopus database was accounted average 166,8% of citations more than WoS, but WoS has showed FI values around the 58% greatest. In conclusion, WoS and Scopus provide visibility for the Brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine, although smaller than countries with research tradition. The indexing has influenced in the visibility of scientific production, of differently ways. / El trabajo se constituye como un estudio comparativo entre dos bases de datos multidisciplinares internacionales. Tiene como objetivo analisar la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus en el día 31 de julio de 2013. La metodología es cuantitativa, con abordaje bibliometrica. La colecta de los datos fue hecha buscándo resultados de la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical. Entre los resultados, sobre la cobertura, Scopus presentó una media de 12,5% de artículos y 11,2% de publicaciones que la Web of Science. Alrededor de 83% de las publicaciones son las mismas que las dos bases de datos, y la mayoría de la producción científica del estudio se concentra en estas. Scopus ha obtenido 27% más citas que WoS, sin embargo ellas hajan sido superiores sólamente en la segunda mitad del período. Los artículos en inglés superan en 80% en las dos bases de datos, los idiomas portugués y español tienen porcentajes mucho menores, debido al multilinguismo de algunos artículos. El predomínio de publicaciones de origen estadunidense (39%), inglesa (26,5%) y holandesa (9,1%) es evidénte en el estudio. Scopus tiene más de 80% de las publicaciones brasileñas que WoS. En el núcleo de productividad, obtenido a través de la aplicación de la Ley de Bradford, las publicaciones brasileñas son responsables por 62% de la producción cientifica del área. La dispersión observada ha mostrado que la dinámica entre las dos bases de datos es practicamente idéntica. Aproximadamente 64% de las publicaciones son editadas por instituciones públicas, independiente del país de origen. El inglés constituye 82% del idioma de las publicaciones. Salud Pública (28,8%) y Parasitología (23%), fueron las categorías más identificadas en el área de Medicina Tropical según la Capes. Considerase que Web of Science y Scopus han proporcionado visibilidad a la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, sin embargo esta es menor que la de los países con tradición en investigación cientifica. La indización ha influenciado la visibilidad de la producción cientifica, de formas diferentes.

Analisa a produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical nas bases de dados Web of Science e Scopus. Trata-se de um estudo quantitativo com abordagem bibliométrica, cuja coleta foi feita nas bases Web of Science e Scopus, no dia 31 de julho de 2013, buscando-se resultados da produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical. Os resultados mostram que a Scopus apresentou uma média de 12,5% de artigos e 11,2% de periódicos a mais do que a Web of Science. Cerca de 83,6% dos periódicos são os mesmos nas duas bases de dados. Grande parte da produção científica de cada uma está concentrada nesses. A Scopus obteve 27% de citações a mais do que a WoS, embora elas tenham sido superiores apenas na segunda metade do período. O idioma inglês registrou cerca 80% das ocorrências nas duas bases de dados, e os idiomas português e espanhol aparecem em percentuais muito menores, em função do multilinguismo de alguns artigos. A predominância dos periódicos de origem estadunidense (39,3%), inglesa (26,5%) e holandesa (9,1%) fica evidente na pesquisa. A Scopus contabiliza 80% de periódicos brasileiros a mais do que a WoS. Dentro do núcleo de produtividade, localizado pela aplicação da Lei de Bradford, os periódicos brasileiros são responsáveis por 62% da produção científica da área. A dispersão verificada mostrou que a dinâmica entre as duas bases é praticamente idêntica. Cerca de 64% dos periódicos são publicados por instituições públicas, independente do país de origem. Os periódicos em inglês representam 82% do total. Saúde Coletiva (28,8%) e Parasitologia (23%) foram as categorias da Capes mais identificadas dentro da Medicina Tropical. A Scopus contabilizou cerca de 166,8% citações a mais que a WoS, mas a WoS apresenta valores de FI em torno de 58% maiores. Conclui-se que tanto a WoS como a Scopus proporcionam visibilidade à produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical, embora esta seja menor do que a de países com tradição de pesquisa. A indexação influencia a visibilidade da produção científica de diferentes formas. / This research work analyzes the brazilian scientific production of Tropical Medicine in the databases Web of Science and Scopus. The research work employed quantitative methods with bibliometric approach. The collection was made in Web of Science and Scopus, on july 31 of 2013, looking for results about the brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine. Regarding coverage, Scopus showed an average of 12,5% of articles and 11,2% of journals more than WoS. Average 83,6% of journals are commons in the two databases, and the most part of scientific production of each is concentrated them. The Scopus has 27% more citations than WoS, however, was superior only in second half time of period. The English language was accounted with average 80% of registers in the two databases, and the Portuguese and Spanish has smallest percentage, only because the multilingual of many articles. The predominance of the American (39,3%), English (26,5%) and Dutch journals (9,1%) was apparent in the study. The Scopus was account average 80% of brazilian journals more than WoS. Inside productivity nucleus, identified by the application of Bradford’s Law, the brazilian journals are responsible by 62% of scientific production of area. The dispersion was showed that dynamic between two databases is same. Average 64% of the journals are published by public institutions, irrespective of country origin. The English language has 82% of total journals. Collective Health (28,8%) and Parasitology (23%) are the categories of Capes more identified inside Tropical Medicine area. Scopus database was accounted average 166,8% of citations more than WoS, but WoS has showed FI values around the 58% greatest. In conclusion, WoS and Scopus provide visibility for the Brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine, although smaller than countries with research tradition. The indexing has influenced in the visibility of scientific production, of differently ways. / El trabajo se constituye como un estudio comparativo entre dos bases de datos multidisciplinares internacionales. Tiene como objetivo analisar la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus en el día 31 de julio de 2013. La metodología es cuantitativa, con abordaje bibliometrica. La colecta de los datos fue hecha buscándo resultados de la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical. Entre los resultados, sobre la cobertura, Scopus presentó una media de 12,5% de artículos y 11,2% de publicaciones que la Web of Science. Alrededor de 83% de las publicaciones son las mismas que las dos bases de datos, y la mayoría de la producción científica del estudio se concentra en estas. Scopus ha obtenido 27% más citas que WoS, sin embargo ellas hajan sido superiores sólamente en la segunda mitad del período. Los artículos en inglés superan en 80% en las dos bases de datos, los idiomas portugués y español tienen porcentajes mucho menores, debido al multilinguismo de algunos artículos. El predomínio de publicaciones de origen estadunidense (39%), inglesa (26,5%) y holandesa (9,1%) es evidénte en el estudio. Scopus tiene más de 80% de las publicaciones brasileñas que WoS. En el núcleo de productividad, obtenido a través de la aplicación de la Ley de Bradford, las publicaciones brasileñas son responsables por 62% de la producción cientifica del área. La dispersión observada ha mostrado que la dinámica entre las dos bases de datos es practicamente idéntica. Aproximadamente 64% de las publicaciones son editadas por instituciones públicas, independiente del país de origen. El inglés constituye 82% del idioma de las publicaciones. Salud Pública (28,8%) y Parasitología (23%), fueron las categorías más identificadas en el área de Medicina Tropical según la Capes. Considerase que Web of Science y Scopus han proporcionado visibilidad a la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, sin embargo esta es menor que la de los países con tradición en investigación cientifica. La indización ha influenciado la visibilidad de la producción cientifica, de formas diferentes.

Analisa a produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical nas bases de dados Web of Science e Scopus. Trata-se de um estudo quantitativo com abordagem bibliométrica, cuja coleta foi feita nas bases Web of Science e Scopus, no dia 31 de julho de 2013, buscando-se resultados da produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical. Os resultados mostram que a Scopus apresentou uma média de 12,5% de artigos e 11,2% de periódicos a mais do que a Web of Science. Cerca de 83,6% dos periódicos são os mesmos nas duas bases de dados. Grande parte da produção científica de cada uma está concentrada nesses. A Scopus obteve 27% de citações a mais do que a WoS, embora elas tenham sido superiores apenas na segunda metade do período. O idioma inglês registrou cerca 80% das ocorrências nas duas bases de dados, e os idiomas português e espanhol aparecem em percentuais muito menores, em função do multilinguismo de alguns artigos. A predominância dos periódicos de origem estadunidense (39,3%), inglesa (26,5%) e holandesa (9,1%) fica evidente na pesquisa. A Scopus contabiliza 80% de periódicos brasileiros a mais do que a WoS. Dentro do núcleo de produtividade, localizado pela aplicação da Lei de Bradford, os periódicos brasileiros são responsáveis por 62% da produção científica da área. A dispersão verificada mostrou que a dinâmica entre as duas bases é praticamente idêntica. Cerca de 64% dos periódicos são publicados por instituições públicas, independente do país de origem. Os periódicos em inglês representam 82% do total. Saúde Coletiva (28,8%) e Parasitologia (23%) foram as categorias da Capes mais identificadas dentro da Medicina Tropical. A Scopus contabilizou cerca de 166,8% citações a mais que a WoS, mas a WoS apresenta valores de FI em torno de 58% maiores. Conclui-se que tanto a WoS como a Scopus proporcionam visibilidade à produção científica brasileira em Medicina Tropical, embora esta seja menor do que a de países com tradição de pesquisa. A indexação influencia a visibilidade da produção científica de diferentes formas. / This research work analyzes the brazilian scientific production of Tropical Medicine in the databases Web of Science and Scopus. The research work employed quantitative methods with bibliometric approach. The collection was made in Web of Science and Scopus, on july 31 of 2013, looking for results about the brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine. Regarding coverage, Scopus showed an average of 12,5% of articles and 11,2% of journals more than WoS. Average 83,6% of journals are commons in the two databases, and the most part of scientific production of each is concentrated them. The Scopus has 27% more citations than WoS, however, was superior only in second half time of period. The English language was accounted with average 80% of registers in the two databases, and the Portuguese and Spanish has smallest percentage, only because the multilingual of many articles. The predominance of the American (39,3%), English (26,5%) and Dutch journals (9,1%) was apparent in the study. The Scopus was account average 80% of brazilian journals more than WoS. Inside productivity nucleus, identified by the application of Bradford’s Law, the brazilian journals are responsible by 62% of scientific production of area. The dispersion was showed that dynamic between two databases is same. Average 64% of the journals are published by public institutions, irrespective of country origin. The English language has 82% of total journals. Collective Health (28,8%) and Parasitology (23%) are the categories of Capes more identified inside Tropical Medicine area. Scopus database was accounted average 166,8% of citations more than WoS, but WoS has showed FI values around the 58% greatest. In conclusion, WoS and Scopus provide visibility for the Brazilian scientific production in Tropical Medicine, although smaller than countries with research tradition. The indexing has influenced in the visibility of scientific production, of differently ways. / El trabajo se constituye como un estudio comparativo entre dos bases de datos multidisciplinares internacionales. Tiene como objetivo analisar la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus en el día 31 de julio de 2013. La metodología es cuantitativa, con abordaje bibliometrica. La colecta de los datos fue hecha buscándo resultados de la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical. Entre los resultados, sobre la cobertura, Scopus presentó una media de 12,5% de artículos y 11,2% de publicaciones que la Web of Science. Alrededor de 83% de las publicaciones son las mismas que las dos bases de datos, y la mayoría de la producción científica del estudio se concentra en estas. Scopus ha obtenido 27% más citas que WoS, sin embargo ellas hajan sido superiores sólamente en la segunda mitad del período. Los artículos en inglés superan en 80% en las dos bases de datos, los idiomas portugués y español tienen porcentajes mucho menores, debido al multilinguismo de algunos artículos. El predomínio de publicaciones de origen estadunidense (39%), inglesa (26,5%) y holandesa (9,1%) es evidénte en el estudio. Scopus tiene más de 80% de las publicaciones brasileñas que WoS. En el núcleo de productividad, obtenido a través de la aplicación de la Ley de Bradford, las publicaciones brasileñas son responsables por 62% de la producción cientifica del área. La dispersión observada ha mostrado que la dinámica entre las dos bases de datos es practicamente idéntica. Aproximadamente 64% de las publicaciones son editadas por instituciones públicas, independiente del país de origen. El inglés constituye 82% del idioma de las publicaciones. Salud Pública (28,8%) y Parasitología (23%), fueron las categorías más identificadas en el área de Medicina Tropical según la Capes. Considerase que Web of Science y Scopus han proporcionado visibilidad a la producción cientifica brasileña en Medicina Tropical, sin embargo esta es menor que la de los países con tradición en investigación cientifica. La indización ha influenciado la visibilidad de la producción cientifica, de formas diferentes.

M.Phil / Citing is the process by which scholars give recognition to research used by another academic researcher. Citation resources are tools used by academic scholars for keeping track of who did what research and the impact of the research within the discipline. Citation analysis is therefore an attempt to measure the impact and contribution of a study to the body of knowledge and research. Citation tracking and citation analysis is facilitated by making use of information resources which specialize in citations and tools for conducting citation analysis. The citation resource by The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science (WOS), was traditionally the citation tool of choice of academics for more than 40 years. The arrival in 2004 of Scopus, a fee-based citation resource, and Google Scholar (GS), a citation resource available for free and accessible via the Web, presented WOS with competition. The prolific growth of the citation resources created new opportunities for academics in citation tracking and citation analysis. The question of which citation resource to use in the process of tracking citations and conducting citation analysis posed a challenge to librarians and information professionals at academic institutions. It became essential to establish which citation resource was not only most relevant to use for which subject discipline, but which was the most cost-effective with the advent of shrinking library budgets. Therefore the need arose for citation resources to be compared with the aim of establishing whether the newcomers Scopus and GS are substitutes for or complementary to the traditional WOS. The objectives of this study included comparing WOS, Scopus and GS in order to determine whether evaluation criteria existed for citation resources, to define scholarly environmental sciences journals within a South African context, to determine which citation resource presented the most comprehensive citation coverage of the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals, to determine whether GS could be considered a substitute for the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus, and to determine how the content of the exported data for the journal sample population compared in terms of content completeness and quality. The research study consisted of a detailed literature review, followed by an empirical component using a comparative research design and the technique of purposive non-probability sampling in order to define the sample population for the study. The South African scholarly environmental sciences journals internationally accredited during the period 2004-2008 were chosen as the sample target population. The study consisted of a pilot study and three measuring instruments that were compiled based on the literature review. The results of the macro-level evaluation established that Scopus surpasses both WOS and GS. On the other hand, the micro-level evaluation concluded that WOS surpasses Scopus and GS. The content verification process conducted determined that Scopus and WOS both surpass GS. These findings were presented at the 12th Annual World Wide Web Applications conference in September 2010. The study was able to establish that GS is not a substitute for WOS and/or Scopus for the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals. In addition, it was concluded that GS can be used as a supplementary citation resource to the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus. It was further determined that the citation resource Scopus can be considered a substitute for WOS, which was traditionally the citation resource of choice of academic researchers.

In this Research Commentary, we describe 3 journal metrics–the Web of Science's Impact Factor, Scopus's SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar Metrics' h5-index—and compile the rankings (if they exist) for 69 mathematics education journals. We then discuss 2 paths that the mathematics education community should consider with regard to these citation-based metrics of journal quality: either working within the system to enhance our positioning or resisting or modifying the system itself.

自2003年布達佩斯宣言公佈起，國際間學術文獻開始開放取用的趨勢。於此背景下，本研究以諾貝爾生物醫學獎近十年23位得主為研究樣本，評比在商業資料庫(SCIE、Scopus)及開放取用系統(生物醫學類：Pubmed、Highwire；綜合類：Google Scholar)的文獻收錄狀況，除了比較其內部重複性與完整性，並交叉比對五個資料庫與系統的重複性、獨特性及完整性，同時也觀看能否取得全文的比率，來了解現今開放取用文獻的狀況，進而觀察開放取用系統和商業資料庫兩者是否可以互補，或是開放取用系統有代替商業資料庫的可能性。 研究結果顯示五個資料庫及系統的檢索形式多元。針對作者檢索而言，Scopus最完善，資料收錄也較齊全；SCIE及Pubmed兩者則是檢索結果最為相似。如果以學術出版收錄而言，則是Highwire較完整；至於Google Scholar的獨特性較高。整體而言，開放取用系統比商業資料庫的全文收錄比例高，但Scopus是收錄最多全文的資料庫。本研究同時也發現PNAS是五個資料庫與系統之重複來源及獨特來源。另外，使用PubMed及Highwire檢索生物醫學文獻會比Google Scholar來得專業。 根據研究結果建議，商業資料庫可考慮將網路開放資源納入收錄範圍，以便妥善整理及應用網路資源的書目及全文。開放取用系統則應改善索引書目之正確性及著錄完整性。另外，針對圖書館的服務宜採取以下之因應措施：(1)加強推廣商業資料庫之正確檢索方式及使用時機；(2)教導如何正確使用開放取用系統的檢索模式；(3)平衡商業資料庫和開放取用系統的使用，以達成圖書館經費的合理運用。 本研究後續可延伸至生物醫學領域的臨床及實證醫學上，以了解生物醫學中兩個最具時效性的學術文獻系統是否達到開放取用的立即性及實用性。再者，使用者對開放取用的滿意度研究是學術出版界急欲了解的課題，也是後續研究可加強努力的方向。 / The International Scholarly Communication has gradually forwarded open access system since the publication of Budapest Declaration in 2003. Under this research background, this study uses biomedical Nobel Prize winners in recent years for the study of 23 samples of appraisal in the commercial database (SCIE, Scopus) and open access systems (biomedical categories: Pubmed, Highwire ; Comprehensive: Google Scholar) literature collection status, in addition to comparing repeatability and integrity of its internal and cross-comparison of the five databases and system repeatability, uniqueness and integrity, while also viewing the ability to obtain the ratio of text to understand current status of open access literature, and then observe the open access systems and commercial databases whether the two can complement each other, or open access database system instead of commercial possibilities. The results showed that five databases have different retrieval systems in many different forms. For the purposes of retrieval, Scopus collections are more complete; SCIE and Pubmed are the most similar two databases in the search results. Inclusion academic publishing purposes, Highwire is the most complete one. For Google Scholar, the collection’s uniqueness is the highest. Overall, comparing the open access system with commercial database, open access system contains a high proportion of full text. Scopus is the most one of full text collections. The PNAS study also found that five of the duplicate database and system sources and unique source. In addition, the use of PubMed and Highwire retrieved biomedical literature is more professional than Google Scholar. According to the study results suggest that commercial databases can be considered included in the scope of network resources into the open, in order to properly organize network resources and application of bibliographic and full-text. Open access system should improve the accuracy and bibliographic indexing bibliographic completeness. In addition, for the library service should take the following measures in response to: (a) enhance the promotion of commercial database retrieval methods and the use of proper timing; (2) to teach the proper use of open access system retrieval mode; (3) Balance Business open access database and use of the system, in order to achieve rational use of library funds. The follow-up research of this study can be extended to the field of clinical and biomedical evidence-based medicine research. The follow-up research results can be used to understand the biomedical literature’ timeliness, whether the system reaches an open access immediate or practicality. Furthermore, users' satisfaction with open access scholarly publishing research is also an anxious subject to know, and the follow-up study will strengthen efforts.

Ist die Zitationsanalyse ein geeignetes Instrument zur Forschungsevaluation? Diese Dissertation untersucht, ob die zugrunde liegenden Zitationsdaten ausreichend fehlerfrei sind, um aussagekräftige Ergebnisse der Analysen zu erzielen, beziehungsweise sollte dies nicht der Fall sein, ob der Prozess, der die zitierenden und zitierten Artikel einander zurordnet, ausreichend robust gegenüber Ungenauigkeiten in den Daten ist. Ungenauigkeiten wurden als Unterschiede in den Datenwerten der bibliographischen Angaben definiert. Die untersuchten Daten setzen sich aus gezielt ausgewählten Publikationen des Web of Science (WoS) zusammen, welche eine geschichtete Stichprobe ergeben. Die bibliographischen Daten von 3.929 Referenzen wurden in einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse bewertet und die bibliographischen Ungenauigkeiten in einer Taxonomie zusammengefasst. Um genau festzulegen, welche von diesen tatsächlich den Zuordnungsprozess von Zitationen beeinflussen, wurde eine spezifische Untergruppe von Zitationen, d.h. Zitationen die von WoS nicht erfolgreich dem jeweilig zitierten Artikel zugeordnet wurden, untersucht. Die Ergebnisse wurden mit den Daten zweier weiterer bibliographischen Datenbanken, Scopus und Google Scholar, sowie den Daten dreier angewandter bibliometrischer Forschungsgruppen, CWTS, iFQ und Science-Metrix, trianguliert. Die Zuordnungsalgorithmen von CWTS und iFQ konnten rund zwei Drittel dieser Zitierungen erfolgreich zuordnen. Scopus und Google Scholar konnten ebenso über 60% der fehlenden Zitierungen erfolgreich mit dem entsprechenden zitierten Artikel verbinden, während Science-Metrix nur eine geringe Anzahl an Referenzen (5%) schaffte. Vollkommen falsche erste Seitenzahlen sowie Zahlendreher in Publikationsjahren können in allen Datenquellen nicht richtig zugeordnete Zitierungen verursachen. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen wurden Lösungsvorschläge formuliert, die im Stande sind den Zuordnungsprozess von Zitationen in bibliometrischen Datenquellen zu verbessern. / Is citation analysis an adequate tool for research evaluation? This doctoral research investigates whether the underlying citation data is sufficiently accurate to provide meaningful results of the analyses and if not, whether the citation matching process can rectify inaccurate citation data. Inaccuracies are defined as discrepancies in the data values of bibliographic references, since they are the essential part in the citation matching process. A stratified, purposeful data sample was selected to examine typical cases of publications in Web of Science (WoS). The bibliographic data of 3,929 references was assessed in a qualitative content analysis to identify prevailing inaccuracies in bibliographic references that can interfere with the citation matching process. The inaccuracies were categorized into a taxonomy. Their frequency was studied to determine any strata-specific patterns. To pinpoint the types of inaccuracies that influence the citation matching process, a specific subset of citations, i.e. citations not successfully matched by WoS, was investigated. The results were triangulated with five other data sources: with data from two bibliographic databases in their role as citation indexes (Scopus and Google Scholar) and with data from three applied bibliometric research groups (CWTS, iFQ and Science-Metrix). The matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ were able to match around two thirds of these citations correctly. Scopus and Google Scholar also handled more than 60% successfully in their matching. Science-Metrix only matched a small number of references (5%). Completely incorrect starting page numbers and transposed publication years can cause a citation to be missed in all data sources. However, more often it is a combination of more than one kind of inaccuracy in more than one field that leads to a non-match. Based on these results, proposals are formulated that could improve the citation matching processes of the different data sources.