Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings

Full text

Pdf (1.24 MB)

Source

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents

Boston, MA, USA

SESSION: Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings table of contents

Pages 699-708

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-246-7

Authors

Christoph Bartneck	Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
Jun Hu	Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 34, Downloads (12 Months): 248, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518810 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The CHI conference has grown rapidly over the last 26 years. We present a quantitative analysis on the countries and organizations that contribute to its success. Only 7.8 percent of the countries are responsible for 80 percent of the papers in the CHI proceedings, and the USA is clearly the country with most papers. But the success of a country or organization does not depend only on the number of accepted papers, but also on their quality. We present a ranking of countries and organizations based on the h index, an indicator that tries to balance the quantity and quality of scientific output based on a bibliometric analysis. The bibliometric analysis also allowed us to demonstrate the difficulty of judging quality. The papers acknowledged by the best paper award committee were not cited more often than a random sample of papers from the same years. The merit of the award is therefore unclear, and it might be worthwhile to allow the visitor to the conference to vote for the best paper.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Greenberg, S. and Buxton, B. Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). ACM, City, 2008.
	2	Barkhuus, L. and Rode, J. From Mice to Men-24 Years of Evaluation in CHI. Twenty-fith annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - Alt. CHI2007).
	3	Wendie Wulff , Dick E. Mahling, An assessment of HCI: issues and implications, ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, v.22 n.1, p.80-87, Jul. 1990 [doi>10.1145/101288.101305]
	4	Newman, W. A preliminary analysis of the products of HCI research, using pro forma abstracts. ACM, City, 1994.
	5	Garfield, E. The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1 (January 4, 2006 2006), 90--93.
	6	Lotka, A. J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 12 1926), 317--323.
	7	Bartneck, C. What Is Good? - A Comparison Between The Quality Criteria Used In Design And Science. ACM, City, 2008.
	8	Christoph Bartneck , Matthias Rauterberg, HCI reality-an 'Unreal Tournament'?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.65 n.8, p.737-743, August, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.03.003]
	9	Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 21 (June 5, 2002 2002), 2786--2790.
	10	Lawrence, P. A. The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 6929 2003), 259--261.
	11	Horrobin, D. F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 10 (March 9, 1990 1990), 1438--1441.
	12	Enserink, M. SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? Science, 293, 5538 (September 21, 2001 2001), 2187a--2188.
	13	Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 2 1982), 187--195.
	14	Holden, G., Rosenberg, G. and Barker, K. Bibliometrics in social work. Haworth Social Work Practice Press, Binghamton, 2005.
	15	Henk F. Moed, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Information Science & Knowledge Management), Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 2005
	16	Garfield, E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 4 1979), 359--375.
	17	MacRoberts, M. and MacRoberts, B. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 3 1996), 435--444.
	18	Lawrence, P. A. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 1 (June 03, 2008 2008), 9--11.
	19	Universities UK The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Universities UK, 2007.
	20	Katz, J. and Hicks, D. Desktop scientometrics. Scientometrics, 38, 1 1997), 141--153.
	21	Pauly, D. and Stergiou, K. I. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 20052005), 33--35.
	22	Jacso, P. As we may search-comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89, 9 2005), 1537--1547.
	23	Jacso, P. Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs. Online Information Review, 30, 2 2006), 188--193.
	24	Jacso, P. Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30, 3 2006), 297--309.
	25	Harzing, A. W. K. and van der Wal, R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics In Science And Environmental Politics, 82008), 61--73.
	26	Lokman I. Meho , Kiduk Yang, Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.58 n.13, p.2105-2125, November 2007 [doi>10.1002/asi.v58:13]
	27	Hirsch, J. E. 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 (November 15, 2005 2005), 16569--16572.
	28	Egghe, L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 1 2006), 131--152.
	29	A. Marzal , E. Vidal, Computation of Normalized Edit Distance and Applications, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v.15 n.9, p.926-932, September 1993 [doi>10.1109/34.232078]
	30	United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects. New York, 2006.
	31	Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R. and Dubois, C. L. Z. Outlier Detection And Treatment In I/O Psychology: A Survey Of Researcher Beliefs And An Empirical Illustration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 3 1991), 473--486.
	32	Green, R. G. The Paradox of Faculty Publications in Professional Journals. Haworth Press, City, 2005.
	33	Gold, V. SIGCHI Announces Best of CHI 2008 Award Winners: Conference Honors Research that Addresses Problems of Accessibility, Homelessness, Healthcare, Emerging Markets. ACM, City, 2008.
	34	Lawrence, S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature, 411, 6837 2001), 521--521.