E-text

Research and Publication Ethics (RPE)

Module- 06A: Databases
Contents
6A.0 Objectives
6A.1 Introduction
6A.3 Definition: Database
6A.4 Indexing databases
6A.5 Indexing process
6A.6 Citation databases : Web of Science, Scopus
6A.7 Summary
6A.8 Questions/ Self Assessment questions
6A.9 References/ Bibliography/ Select Reading

6A.0 Objectives

After going through this unit learners will be able :

 To know regarding different indexing techniques for information storage and retrieval.
 To locate problems of indexing.
 To identify indexing policies and procedures.
 To categorize and provide details, including subject terms, about journal articles and other items.
 To discern how to describe a document and give citation details and other information according
to set rules specified for the database.
 To elucidate succinctly the contents of a document in a written summary (called an abstract)
produce a database record for an item, providing online access to a body of literature.
 To know the types of different indexing.
 To be familiar with the subject Gateways.
 To make out about Website and metadata indexing.

6A.1 Introduction

The function of indexing in libraries and information retrieval systems is to indicate the whereabouts
or absence of items relevant to a request. It is essentially a time-saving mechanism. Theoretically, we can
always find the relevant items by an exhaustive search through the whole collection (assuming that we
can recognize what is relevant when we see it). Since this is economically impossible, the size of the store
to be examined is reduced by classification, using this term in its very broadest sense, i.e. , as the
recognition of useful similarities between documents and the establishment of useful document groups
based on these similarities. So documents, or document surrogates, are assigned to a limited number of

Page 1 of 36
classes according to certain criteria, in particular, their subject content (although in machine indexing,
utilizing complete text scanning, this 'limited number' can become very large - as large as the number of
significant words used in the text). Search for relevant items is made via these classes (which are classes
of documents); only those with a probability of containing relevant items are examined, and the rest
(hopefully the vast majority) are ignored.
Indexing Process and Principles https://www.lisbdnetwork.com/indexing-principles-and-process/

An index is a guide to the items contained in or concepts derived from a collection. Item denotes any book,
article, report, abstract review, etc. (textbook, part of a collection, passage in a book, an article in a journal,
etc.). The word index has its origin in Latin and means: ‘to point out, to guide, to direct, to locate’. An
index indicates or refers to the location of an object or idea. The definition according to the British
standards (BS 3700: 1964) is “a systematic guide to the text of any reading matter or to the contents of
other collected documentary material, comprising a series of entries, with headings arranged in
alphabetical or other chosen order and with references to show where each item indexed is located”. An
index is, thus, a working tool designed to help the user to find his way out the mass of documented
information in a given subject field, or document store. It gives subject access to documents irrespective
their physical forms like books, periodical articles, newspapers, AV documents, and computer-readable
records including Web resources. (Indexing Process).

6A.3 Definition: Database

Definition of the terms index and indexing

The word index comes from Latin and meant, according to Harper (2017), “one who point out, discloser,
discoverer, informer, forefinger (because used in pointing), pointer, sign, title, inscription, list”. Knight
(1979, 17) wrote that the Latin word had the meaning “he who, or that which, points the way”.

In Oxford English Dictionary (2018) the following senses, among others, are given:
Sense 4b: “A sign, token, or indication of something” Sense 5b: “An alphabetical list, placed (usually) at
the end of a book, of the names, subjects, etc. occurring in it, with indication of the places in which they
occur”.

Sense 5d: “Computing. A set of items each of which specifies one of the records of a file and contains
information about its address.”

In → library and information science (LIS), there have been different suggestions on how to define an
index [3] and the process of indexing. Borko and Bernier (1978, 8) defined indexing as “the process of
analyzing the informational content of records of knowledge and expressing the informational content in
the language of the indexing system”; the ISO standard 5963:1985 defines indexing as “[t]he act of
describing or identifying a document [4] in terms of its subject content”, while Chan (1994, 166) pointed
out that indexing involves basically three steps: (1) determining subject content of the item, (2) identifying
multiple subjects and/or subject aspects and interrelationships, and (3) representing them in the language

Page 2 of 36
of the subject headings list. While these definitions best suits manual indexing, other definitions may cover
both manual and automatic indexing. Mulvany (2010, 486).

In the United States, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) [Anderson 1997] defines
an index as “a systematic guide designed to indicate topics or features of documents in order to facilitate
retrieval of documents or parts of documents” (p. 39). The International Organization of Standardization’s
(ISO) ISO 999 [ISO 999:1996] defines an index as an alphabetically or otherwise ordered arrangement of
entries, different from the order of the document or collection indexed, designed to enable users to locate
information in a document or specific documents in a collection. (Section 3.5)

Many find these definitions too broad and imprecise. More thorough and lengthy descriptions of the
purpose of an index can be found in the British Standard’s “Function of an Index” [BS 3700: 1988] and
the American Society for Indexing’s (ASI) “Criteria for the H.W. Wilson Award” [5]. For general
purposes, this definition could be useful: “An index is a structured sequence—resulting from a thorough
and complete analysis of text—of synthesized access points to all the information contained in the text”
[Mulvany 2005, 8]. A computer-generated list of words in the text, even arranged alphabetically, is not an
index. For example, a concordance does not require analysis and synthesis of a text and its meaning.

The concordance can only list words that appear in the text; it cannot include concepts or indicate
relationships between topics. An alphabetical list of words does not truly qualify as the structured sequence
that we associate with a proper book index.”

While indexes are often alphabetically arranged, this is not always the case, as also reflected in Mulvany’s
definition above. (→ Alphabetization is treated in an independent article in this encyclopedia.) Another
definition is:

An index is an array of symbols, systematically arranged, together with a reference from each symbol to
the physical location of the item symbolized. The items themselves may be stored in any arbitrary
arrangement and yet located by virtue of the correspondence between them and their symbols. When
names or verbal descriptions constitute the symbols, the established order of letters in the alphabet
provides a convenient, searchable order of arrangement. (Taube 1953, 40)

Weinberg (2017, 1978) suggested the following definition:

An index leads from a known order of symbols to an unknown order of information. An index is in a
different order from the document or collection to which it provides access [6].

Building on Weinberg’s definition, an index can be considered a kind of → document, whether an

independent document (e.g., printed or electronic as a database), a part of a document (e.g. a back-of-the-
book index) or a structure embedded [7] in a document (e.g. in an XML document). The function of
indexes is to provide access to information in or about other documents. Borrowing the terminology from
translation studies, from a construction perspective [8] an index may be considered a target document and
the documents indexed (whether independent documents or collections) may be considered source
documents.

Page 3 of 36
The task of providing access to information in source documents is done:
 By deriving symbols from source documents or by assigning symbols about source documents (or
by deriving/assigning symbols to specific places in source documents as in back- of-the-book
indexes);
 by providing a known order of symbols (e.g. alphabetical order);
 by providing semantic relations between the symbols in the index (helping the users finding the
right symbols); this third step is possible, but not mandatory.
 Contrary to Mulvany’s quote above, a computer-generated list of words in the text, arranged
alphabetically, fulfills a definition of an index (but is not a quality index, but many human-made
indexes may be even lower quality).

Therefore, the following definition is here suggested:

An index is a kind of target document, which has the function of providing access to information in or
about some source documents by deriving symbols from the source documents or by assigning symbols
about the source documents, thereby providing users access from a known order of symbols (e.g. A-Z) to
an unknown place of information. An index often provides an order that is different from the document or
collection to which it provides access, if not, it provides more or alternative entry points. In addition, an
index may assist users finding the needed terms (or symbols) by providing semantic relations between
indexing terms [9].

Index and indexing can be defined reciprocally: indexing is the process of producing an index and an
index is the product of an indexing process [10]. The process can be done by humans, by computer
programs (which are made by humans and therefore also reflects human subjectivity) or by combinations.
To provide an impression of the great variation of indexing processes, Section 2 provides a systematic
overview of kinds of indexes. (https://www.isko.org/cyclo/indexing).

6A.4 Indexing Databases

Types of Indexing
There are many different types of indexing, some of which require specialised skills from indexers.
Examples include:
 Bibliographic and database indexing
 Genealogical indexing
 Geographical indexing
 Book indexing
 Legal indexing
 Periodical and newspaper indexing
 Pictorial indexing
 Subject gateways
 Website and metadata indexing

Bibliographic and database indexing

Page 4 of 36
Bibliographic database indexers provide records for items such as journal articles. The database then
provides online access to a body of literature (eg medical journal articles). Citation and subject details are
described according to set rules specifically for that database.

A database indexer aims to:

 identify and provide details, including subject terms, about journal articles and other items, usually
within a broad subject area, and which may include use of a thesaurus
 describe a document and give citation details and other information according to set rules specified
for the database
 explain succinctly the contents of a document in a written summary (called an abstract)
 produce a database record for an item, providing online access to a body of literature.

Genealogical indexing
Genealogical indexes allow users to look up people’s names and find information about personal and
family relationships. They often eliminate the need to access original source materials (eg cemetery
inscriptions). Genealogical indexers are skilled in researching and recording information about historical
people and places.

Geographical indexing
Geographic indexers create indexes to maps, atlases and other cartographic material. Geographical
indexes may include place names, topics, historical details, mathematical qualities (eg scale and
coordinates) and artistic features. Often geographic indexers have special skills or backgrounds
in cartography or geography.

Book indexing
Book indexers create indexes to provide access to detailed contents of books. Back-of-book indexes are
made for all types of non-fiction books, including textbooks, multi-volume works, technical reports and
annual reports. Books that are online, PDF books, and ebooks also need indexes. These link directly to
points in the text.

Legal indexing
Legal indexing involves indexing of legal materials by form and content. Legal indexers are familiar with
legal concepts and classification and are able to translate the classification into an accessible index. Legal
indexers are especially involved in the consolidation and updating of existing indexes, and also prepare
tables of legislation and cases.

Periodical and newspaper indexing

Periodical and newspaper indexes give access to the contents of individual articles and other items in
serialised publications. Many periodical and newspaper indexes are based on a controlled vocabulary to
ensure consistent use of terms from year to year. Periodical and newspaper indexers help ensure that an
overview of the issues discussed throughout the life of the index are easily accessible. Newspaper and
periodical indexes can be annual or cumulative.

Pictorial indexing

Page 5 of 36
Indexes to images help users identify relevant pictures in collections of photographs, art works, videos
and films. Pictorial indexers are skilled in identifying and describing images in visual collections.

Subject gateways
Indexers are also involved in new forms of electronic indexing. One growing area needing indexing is
online information. Indexers create subject gateways on the internet which classify links to web pages of
interest.

Website and metadata indexing

Despite the proliferation of automated search engines, there are a number of ways in which human
indexers are needed to enhance access to information on the World Wide Web. Website indexes can be
similar in style to back of book indexes or can be designed as hierarchical pages, which both link directly
to the information required. They complement other navigational tools such as site maps and search
engines. Metadata indexers improve the precision of access to web documents through search engines by
the use of standard elements similar to those used in database indexes and library catalogues.

Figure 1: The traditional view of the kinds of indexing languages (after Hjørland 2012, 304; see also the more
elaborated model provided by Chatterjee 2016, 138) https://www.isko.org/cyclo/indexing

6A.5 Indexing Process and Principles

Early indexes were limited to personal names or occurrences of words in the text indexed, rather than
topical (subject concept) indexes.

Topical indexes are found at the beginning of the 18th century. In the nineteenth century, subject access
to books was by means of a classification. Books were arranged by subject and their surrogates were
correspondingly arranged in a classified catalogue. Only in the late 19th century, subject indexing became
widespread and more systematic. Preparation of back-of-the-book index, historically, may be regarded as
the father of all indexing techniques.

Page 6 of 36
Indexing techniques actually originated from these indexes. It was of two types:
1. Specific index, which shows a broad topic on the form of one-idea-one-entry, i.e. the specific context
of a specific idea; and
2. Relative index, which shows various aspects of an idea and its relationship with other ideas.

Specific index cannot show this, it only shows broad topic on the form of one-idea-one-entry, i.e. specific
context of a specific idea. The readymade lists of subject headings like Sears List and LCSH fall far short
of the actual requirement for depth indexing of micro documents in the sense that the terms are found to
be too broad in the context of users’ areas of interest and of the thought content of the present-day micro
document.

Purpose of Indexing:
Indexing is regarded as the process of describing and identifying documents in terms of their subject
contents. Here, The concepts are extracted from documents by the process of analysis, and then transcribed
into the elements of the indexing systems, such as thesauri, classification schemes, etc.

In indexing decisions, concepts are recorded as data elements organised into easily accessible forms for
retrieval. These records can appear in various forms, e.g. back-of-the-book indexes, indexes to catalogues
and bibliographies, machine files, etc. The process of indexing has a close resemblance to the search
process. Indexing procedures can be used, on one hand, for organising concepts into tools for information
retrieval, and also, by analogy, for analysing and organising enquiries into concepts represented as
descriptors or combinations of descriptors, classification symbols, etc.

Problems in Indexing:
A number of problems and issues are associated with indexing which are enumerated below:
a) Complexities in the subjects of documents-usually multi-word concept:
b) Multidimensional users need for information;
c) Choice of terms from several synonyms;
d) Choice of word forms (Singular / Plural form);
e) Distinguishing homographs;
f) Identifying term relationships – Syntactic and Semantic;
g) Depth of indexing (exhaustivity);
h) Levels of generality and specificity for representation of concepts (specificity);
i) Ensuring consistency in indexing between several indexers (inter-indexer consistency), and by the same
indexer at different times (intra-indexer consistency);
j) Ensuring that indexing is done not merely on the basis of a document’s intrinsic subject content but also
according to the type of users who may be benefited from it and the types of requests for which the
document is likely to be regarded as useful;
k) The kind of vocabulary to be used, and syntactical and other rules necessary for representing complex
subjects; and
l) Problem of how to use the ‘index assignment data’.

Indexing Policy

Page 7 of 36
It is necessary for each information system to define for itself an indexing policy, which spell out the level
of exhaustivity to be adopted, a vocabulary that will ensure the required degree of specificity-rules,
procedures and controls that will ensure consistency in indexing, and methods by which users may interact
with the information system, so that indexing may, as far as possible, be related to and be influenced by
user needs and search queries. The exhaustivity and specificity are management decisions. Since
document retrieval is based on the logical matching of document index terms and the terms of a query,
the operation of indexing is absolutely crucial. If documents are incompletely or inaccurately indexed,
two kinds of retrieval errors occur viz. irrelevant documents retrieval and relevant documents non-
retrieval.

When indexing, it is necessary to understand, at least in general terms, what the document is about
(aboutness). The subject content of a document comprises a number of concepts or ideas. For e.g. an
article on lubricants for cold rolling of aluminium alloys will contain information on lubricants, cold
rolling, aluminium alloys etc. The indexer selects these concepts, which are of potential value for the
purpose of retrieval, i.e., those concepts on which according to him, information is likely to be sought for
by the users. It is the choice of concepts or the inner ability to recognise what a document is about is in
the very heart of the indexing procedure. However, it is the identification of concepts that contributes to
inconsistencies in indexing.

The problem of vocabulary deals the rules for deciding which terms are admissible for membership in the
vocabulary. There is also a problem of how to determine the goodness or effectiveness of any vocabulary.
This implies that the system ranks each of the documents in the collection by the probability that it will
satisfy given query of the user. Thus, the output documents relating to a search query are ranked according
to their probability of satisfaction.

Indexing Process:
Before indexing, the indexer should first take a look at the entire collection and make a series of decisions
like,:
a) Does the collection contain any categories of material that should not be indexed?
b) Does the material require general, popular vocabulary in the index?
c) What is the nature of the collection?
d) What is the characteristics of the user population?
e) The physical environment in which the system will function; and
f) Display or physical appearance of the index.

Essentially, the processes of indexing consist of two stages: (i) establishing the concepts expressed in a
document, i.e. the subject; and (ii) translating these concepts into the components of the indexing
language.
a) Establishing the concepts expressed in a document:
The process of establishing the subject of a document can itself be divided into three stages:

i) Understanding the overall content of the document, the purpose of the author, etc:
Full comprehension about the content of the documents depends to a large extent on the form of the
document. Two different cases can be distinguished, i.e. printed documents and non-printed documents.

Page 8 of 36
Full understanding of the printed documents depends upon an extensive reading of the text. However, this
is not usually practicable, nor is it always necessary. The important parts of the text need to be considered
carefully with particular attention to: title, abstract, introduction, the opening phrases of chapters and
paragraphs, illustrations, tables, diagrams and their captions, the conclusion, words or groups of words
which are underlined or printed in an unusual typeface. The author’s intentions are usually stated in the
introductory sections, while the final sections generally state how far these aims are achieved.

The indexer should scan all these elements during his study of the document. Indexing directly from the
title is not recommended, and an abstract, if available should not be regarded as a satisfactory substitute
for a reading of the text. Titles may be misleading; both titles and abstracts may be inadequate in many
cases, neither is a reliable source of the kind of information required by an indexer.

A different situation is likely to arise in the case of non-printed documents, such as audio-visual, visual,
sound media and electronic media.

ii) Identification of concepts:

After examining the document, the indexer needs to follow a logical approach in selecting those concepts
that best express its content. The selection of concepts can be related to a schema of categories recognised
as important in the field covered by the document, e.g. phenomena, processes, properties operations,
equipment etc. For example, when indexing works on ‘Drug therapy’, the indexer should check
systematically for the presence or the absence of concepts relating to specific diseases, the name and type
of drug, route of administration, results obtained and/or side effects, etc. Similarly, documents on the
‘Synthesis of chemical compounds’ should be searched for concepts indicating the manufacturing process,
the operating conditions, and the products obtained, etc”.

iii) Selection of concepts:

The indexer does not necessarily need to retain, as indexing elements, all the concepts identified during
the examination of the document. The choice of those concepts, which should be selected or rejected,
depends on the purpose for which the indexing data will be used. Various kinds of purpose can be
identified, ranging from the production of printed alphabetical indexes to the mechanized storage of data
elements for subsequent retrieval. The kind of document being indexed may also affect the product. For
example, indexing derived directly from the text of books, journal articles, etc. is likely to differ from that
derived only from abstracts. However, the selection of concepts in indexing is governed by the Indexing
policy: exhaustivity and specificity adopted by the given system.

b) Translating the concepts into the indexing language:

In the next stage in subject indexing is to translate the selected concepts into the language of the indexing
system. At this stage, an indexing can be looked from two different levels: document level, which is known
as Derivative indexing; and concept level, which is known as Assignment indexing. Derivative indexing
is the indexing by extraction. Words or phrases actually occurring in a document can be selected or
extracted directly from the document (keyword indexing, automatic indexing, etc.). Here, no attempt is
made to use the indexing language, but to use only the words or phrases, which are manifested in the
document. Assignment indexing (also known as ‘concept Indexing) involves the conceptual analysis of
the contents of a document for selecting concepts expressed in it, assigning terms for those concepts from

Page 9 of 36
some form of controlled vocabulary according to given rules and procedures for displaying syntactic and
semantic relationships (e.g. Chain Indexing, PRECIS, POPSI, Classification Schemes, etc.). Here, an
indexing language is designed and it is used for both indexing and search process.

Indexing Language:
An indexing language is an artificial language consisting of a set of terms and devices for handling the
relationship between them for providing index description. It is also referred to as a retrieval language.
An indexing language is ‘artificial’ in the sense that it may depend upon the vocabulary of natural
language, though not always, but its syntax, semantics, word forms, etc. would be different from a natural
language. Thus, an indexing language consists of elements that constitute its vocabulary (i.e. controlled
vocabulary), rules for admissible expression (i.e. syntax) and semantics. More discussion on indexing
languages can be seen in the Indexing language.

Theory of Indexing:
The lack of an indexing theory to explain the indexing process is a major blind spot in information
retrieval. Very little seems to have been written about the role and value of theory in indexing. Those who
have written about it, however, tend to agree that it serves a vital function. One important function of the
theory of indexing is to establish an agenda for research. Equally important, by identifying gaps it suggests
what remains to be investigated. Theories also supply a rationale for, or an argument against, current
practices in subject indexing. They can put things in perspective, or provide a new and different
perspective.

The contributions made by K P Jones and R. Fugmann [Quinn, 1994] in indexing theory are worth
mentioning. According to Jones, an indexing theory should consist of five levels, which are as follow:
a) Concordance level: It consists of references to all words in the original text arranged in alphabetical
order.
b) Information-theoretic level: This level calculates the likelihood of a word being chosen for indexing
based on its frequency of occurrence within a text. For example, the more frequently a word appears, the
less likely it is to be selected because of the indexer reasons the document ‘all about that’.
c) Linguistic level: This level of indexing theory attempts to explain how meaningful words are extracted
from large units of text. Indexers regard opening paragraphs, chapters and/or sections, and opening and
closing sentences of paragraphs are more likely to be a source of indexable Units, as are definitions.
d) Textual level: Beyond individual words or phrases lies the fourth level—the textual or skeletal
framework. The author in his/her work presents ideas in an organized manner, which produces a skeletal
structure clothed in text. The successful indexer needs to identify this skeleton by searching for clues on
the surface.
e) Inferential level: An indexer is able to make inferences about the relationships between words or
phrases by observing the paragraph and sentence structure, and stripping the sentence of extraneous detail.
This inference level makes it possible for the indexer to identify novel subject areas.

Indexing theory proposed by Robert Fugmann is based on five general axioms, which he claims have
obvious validity and in need of no proof and they explain all currently known phenomena in information
supply.

Page 10 of 36
These five axioms are:
a) Axiom of definability: Compiling information relevant to a topic can only be accomplished to the
degree to which a topic can be defined.
b) Axiom of order: Any compilation of information relevant to a topic is an order creating process.
c) Axiom of the sufficient degree of order: The demands made on the degree of order increase as the
size of a collection and frequency of searches increase.
d) Axiom of predictability: It says that the success of any directed search for relevant information hinges
on how readily predictable or reconstructible are the modes of expression for concepts and statements in
the search file. This axiom is based on the belief that the real purpose of vocabulary control devices is to
enhance representational predictability.
e) Axiom of fidelity: It equates the success of any directed search for relevant information with the fidelity
with which concepts and statements are expressed in the search file.
Like theories in other disciplines, these theories of indexing are developed provisionally, with the
understanding that subsequent research will either support or refute them.

Indexing Criteria:
It is possible, however, to minimize inconsistencies in indexing. Requiring that indexers systematically
test the indexability of concepts by using a set of criteria can do this. It is obviously not possible to suggest
criteria that would produce the same results when used by the same indexer at different times or by more
than one indexer at the same time. The criteria at best enable greater agreement between indexers about
concepts that should be indexed. Some of these criteria are given below in the form of a checklist of
questions that indexers can ask themselves when faced with a document, to be indexed.
1. To what extent the document is about a particular concept? Mere mention of any concept in the
document does not make it indexable. If the concept was a reason for the document or if without the
concept the document would either not exist or be significantly altered, then the concept is worth indexing.
2. Is there enough information about the concept in the document? This is always a matter of judgment
and indexers may disagree with one another about what constitutes ‘enough information’. However,
experience in indexing, in answering queries, and subject knowledge can go a long way in arriving at good
decisions concerning this question.
3. Another way of testing the indexability of a concept would be for the indexer to ask himself: would a
user, searching for information on this concept, be happy if the document on hand is retrieved? Is there a
likelihood of the concept figuring in search queries?

The answer to these questions would not only indicate the indexability of concepts but also the level of
specificity at which concepts need to be indexed. To decide on the factors mentioned above, the indexer
should have good judgment capacity, experience in answering search queries or reference service, a good
understanding of users and their information needs.

5.12.8 Indexing Policy: Exhaustivity and Specificity:

Exhaustivity is a matter of an indexing policy and it is the measure of the extent to which all the distinct
subjects are discussed in a particular document are recognized in indexing operation, and translated into
the language of the system. Exhaustivity in indexing requires more number of index entries focusing
different concepts (both primary and secondary) covered in the documents. The greater the number of
concepts selected for indexing purpose, the more exhaustive is the indexing. If, in a given document,

Page 11 of 36
concepts A, B, C, D, E are selected for indexing then the indexing of the document is more exhaustive
than if only concepts A< B< C are selected. When a relatively large number of concepts are indexed for
each document, the policy followed is one of depth of indexing. Depth of indexing, in other words, allows
for the recognition of concepts embodied not only in the main theme of the document but also in sub-
themes of varying importance. Policy decision in respect of exhaustivity in indexing depends upon several
factors like strength of collection, manpower available, economy and requirements of users.

In selecting a concept, the main criterion should always be its potential value as an element in expressing
the subject content of the document. In making a choice of concepts, the indexer should constantly bear
in mind the questions (as far as these can be known), which may be put to the information system. In
effect, this criterion re-states the principal function of indexing. With this in mind, the indexer should:
 choice the concepts, which would be regarded as most, appropriate by a given community of users;
and
 if necessary, modify both indexing tools and procedures as a result of feedback from enquiries.
 Limit to the number of terms or descriptors, which can be assigned to a document should not be
decided arbitrarily. This should be determined entirely by the amount of information contained in the
document. Any arbitrary limit is likely to lead to loss of objectivity in the indexing, and to the distortion
of information that would be of value for retrieval. If for economic reasons, the number of terms is to
be limited, the selection of concepts should be guided by the indexer’s judgment concerning the
relative importance of concepts in expressing the overall subject of the document.

In many cases, the indexer needs to include, as part of the indexing data, concepts which are present only
by implication, but which serve to set a given concept into an appropriate context.

Specificity is the degree of the preciseness of the subject to express the thought content of the documents.
It is the measure of the extent to which the indexing system permits the indexers to be precise when
specifying the subject of the document. An indexing language is considered to be of high specificity if
minute concepts are represented precisely by it. It is an intrinsic quality of the index language itself.

As a rule, concepts should be identified as specifically as possible. More general concepts may be selected
in some circumstances, depending upon the purpose of the information retrieval system. In particular, the
level of specificity may be affected by the weight attached to a concept by the author. If the indexer
considers that an idea is not fully developed, or is referred to only casually by the author, indexing at a
more general level may be justified.

Both Exhaustivity and Specificity are very closely related to recall and precision. A high level of
exhaustivity increases recall and a high level of specificity increases precision.

Quality Control in Indexing:

The quality of indexing is defined in terms of its retrieval effectiveness—the ability to retrieve what is
wanted and to avoid what is not. The quality of indexing depends on two factors: (i) the qualification of
the indexer; and (ii) the quality of the indexing tools.

Page 12 of 36
An indexing failure on the part of the indexer may take place at two stages of indexing process:
establishing the concepts expressed in a document, and their translation. Failure in establishing concepts
expressed in a document could be of two types:
a) Failure to identify a topic that is of potential interest to the target user group; and
b) Misinterpretation of the content of the document, leading to the selection of inappropriate term(s).
Translation failures may be of three types:
a) Failure to use the most specific terms) to represent the subject of the document;
b) Use of inappropriate term(s) for the subject of a document because of the lack of subject knowledge or
due to lack of seriousness on the part of the indexer; and
c) Omission of important term(s).

For a given information system, the indexing data assigned to a given document should be consistently
the same regardless of the individual indexer. Consistency is a measure that relates to the work of two or
more indexers. It should, remain relatively stable throughout the life of a particular indexing system.
Consistency is particularly important if information is to be exchanged between agencies in a documentary
network. An important factor in reaching the level of consistency is complete impartiality by the indexes.
Almost inevitable, some elements of subjective judgment will affect indexing performance and these
needs to be minimized as far as possible. Consistency is more difficult to achieve with a large indexing
team, or with teams of indexer working in different location (as in a decentralized system). In this situation,
a centralized check stage may be helpful.

The indexer should preferably be a specialist in the field for which the document is indexed. He should
understand the term of the documents as well as the rules and procedures of the specific indexing system.
 Quality control would be achieved more effectively if the indexers have contact with users. They
could then, for example, determine whether certain descriptors may produce false combinations,
and also create noise at the output stage.

 Indexing quality is also dependent upon certain properties of the indexing method or procedure. It
is essential that an index should be able to accommodate new terminology, and also new needs of
users—that is, it must allow frequent updating.

 Indexing quality can be tested by analysis of retrieval results, e.g. by calculating recall and
precision ratios.

6A.6 Citation Databases : Web of Science, Scopus

Introduction
Indexing is the art of organizing published literature from journals and other publications so that
knowledge dissemination becomes hassle-free for scholars. Indexing refers to identifying or pointing to
something. To index also means to explore and to expose. Indexing and abstracting are very crucial for
ready reference services. These ready reference services are made available through various databases.
[6] The idea of indexing is to point to something, which serves as a kind of indicator that directs you to
information. An index is traditionally a list displaying the subject and the page, or a list that presents the

Page 13 of 36
abstract of the information. It doesn’t restrict itself to that, it can also be a collection of information on a
computer or just a set of keywords or even hyperlinks that take you to where the actual information is
available.

Why Indexing for Researcher?

An index primarily saves time and makes knowledge accessible for scholars, researchers, and
academicians. Indexing began in the pre-printing era, with the discovery of the printing press indexing
has advanced and taken great leaps with tech assistance. Earlier, in hand-written indexing there used to be
errors in writing, pagination, etc., and it differed a lot; no two manuscripts were identical. After the
Concordances, the value of indexing scaled up. Concordances are an alphabetical list of the words in a
text or texts, especially biblical ones, usually with the citations of the passages or within the context
displayed. Every single instance is recorded.

Citation Indexing: It is the index of citations that helps us understand that there is a presence of another
work in that particular work. For Eg. New Testament cites the Old Testament. These show the linkage
between current work and prior work in the same field or from different fields.

Legal Citation: It is the mother of all the citation indexes. It gives a list of all the authorities citing a
particular case, statute or other legal authority. One of the most used is Shepherd's (Garfield)citation,
which helps one know if any case has been overturned, questioned or cited by later cases. This began as a
publication of a series of indexes in different jurisdictions by Frank Shepherd in 1873.

Father Roberto Busa is known as the father of Computational Linguistics. He wanted to make an index
by compiling all of St.Thomas Aquinas's work. He approached IBM and proposed them to fund the
project. This project went on for 30 years and the index ran for a volume of 56 books with approximately
70,000 pages.

Eugene Garfield, inspired by Pharmacologist - Historian Chauncey Leake conducted a thorough analysis
of review articles and their cited references. He did this to track the discoveries and medical procedures
to record it in journals. He founded the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in 1960. He also explains
the connection between reference and citation in research. In a speech given on Citations of Indexing at
the Far Eastern State University, he talked about the connection between reference and citation. He said
that reference imply that an author has found a particular theory, method, method or datum useful in some
way. Citation, on the other hand, is more like an 'intellectual debt', an explicit link between their current
research and prior work. [3]

What is a Citation Database?

Citation databases compile the citations in the reference lists (bibliographies) of scholarly publications.
Citation database records also include bibliographic content that identify a publication: article title, journal
name, author, abstract, etc. https://libguides.mssm.edu/citation_analysis/dbs

Why use a citation database?

 Citation databases enable you to find newer papers that reference a paper or author you already
know about. You might want to do this in order to:

Page 14 of 36
  find more papers on a topic
 trace how an idea has been confirmed, applied, extended or corrected in later publications
 see which other researchers are citing your work or the work of your labmates
 find citation numbers and metrics to report on job or grant applications, evaluations, etc.

Three major databases allow interdisciplinary citation searching: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus,
and Google Scholar.

Some other databases, such as SciFinder Scholar (chemistry), PsycInfo and PubMed, allow citation
searching of smaller sets of journals and/or journals focused on specific disciplines.

This tutorial focuses on the Web of Science database because of its coverage and because it provides the
Journal Impact Factor.
 WoS provides complete citation data back to 1900, making it the most accurate for identifying
core or classic articles published before 1996.
 The Journal Impact Factor has been used as a benchmark in the biomedical sciences for several
decades. Although research benchmarks are evolving, It is likely that most research scientists will
be asked at some point to report the Journal Impact Factor of the journals in which they publish.

Review the other pages in this module if you would like to compare the features of Web of Science,
Scopus and Google Scholar.

The concepts taught about citation searching and analysis generally are applicable to all citation databases.
However, since the databases vary in what they cover, search features and citation analysis tools, the best
database to choose depends on your personal preferences and your needs.

Purpose of Indexing An index helps a researcher to track information easily. The index gives keywords
or abstract that helps the reader to map the content, concept, and cross-reference the available information.
It also helps in faster learning and acknowledgment of the information available and also to comprehend
the prominence of the subject or author and also the interconnections.

Benefits of Indexing
 They help in comprehending data
 Map or organize the information
 It can increase the visibility and quality of one's publication.
 Knowledge dissemination on a wide scale.

Indexing Agencies
Indexing Agencies help you optimize your search and also help you locate your information in a specific
domain. Their main focus would be quality and easy access. The following are a few Indexing Agencies
that are known for quality work and help researchers in navigating information.

Page 15 of 36
ISI Web of Science
ISI Web of Science is the world’s largest science journal indexing agency. They began as ISI Web of
Science and later in 2016 they changed their name to Clarivate Analytics. It was first found by Eugene
Garfield and they started as a small citation database now they have more than 1.7 billion cited references
across over 159 million records. They have a multidisciplinary platform that connects regional, specialty,
data and patent indexes. Their indexing includes citations of scholarly books, research articles, peer-
reviewed journals, editorials, etc. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is released every year and it has the
rankings of all the journals available in the database. They have several databases for multidisciplinary
domains from agriculture to dance and theater. It provides authors profile and long term trend analysis,
and h-index before 1996 publications.

Scopus was founded by Elsevier in the year 2004.

They have been into indexing and citation since 1880 with around 3000 journals. It has around 40,503
journals, books, and proceedings in the database. If a journal is indexed in Scopus once then it is indexed
forever. They also have a multidisciplinary collaborative platform that indexes abstracts and citations from
a wide range of peer-reviewed articles. It provides the profile of the author and analysis of the ongoing
trend, citation indexing and average per year citations. In addition to these things, it also provides authors,
titles, keywords, abstracts, periodical titles, address of the authors and publication years. [1]

Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory was a multidisciplinary indexing database that indexed magazines,
journals and serial publication throughout the world. This directory was published in print version from
1932. It was taken over by ProQuest in the year 2019. More than 246,000 regular and irregularly
publications and serial publications are indexed here. They have more than 4,970 new publications. Serial
publications are available online, in print and microform. They have international coverage and their area
of focus was English – Language publications. They derived the followed information from publishers
themselves which was in turn validated by the journal.
 ISSN
 Title and previous titles
 Starting date, place of publication, and the name of the publisher
 Cost, availability of electronic versions, subscription terms, and approximate circulation as estimated by
the publisher
 Subject information, searchable as subject terms or approximate Dewey Classification, special features,
and indexing information
 Indications of whether the publication is available on open access
 Indication of whether the publication is peer-reviewed, which is taken to include professional magazines
with equivalent editorial control of quality. [2]

OCLC or Online Computer Library Centre is run by an American non-profit organization. Their major
focus is to make information cost-free and accessible to the public. It was founded in the Ohio College
Library Centre in 1972. OCLC along with the other library operating systems provided the OPAC (Online
Public Access Catalogue). OCLC primarily focuses on providing, abstract, bibliographic information and
full-text access to information to information seekers. OCLC has been conducting a lot of research for the

Page 16 of 36
library community and they publish their findings along with the other publications, journal articles, and
newsletters in their website.

Google Scholar
Google Scholar is a web search engine that indexes abstract and full-text information on scholarly articles
and research from different domains. Google Scholar was launched in November 2004, though the size of
the database is not revealed it is estimated to have about 160 million documents indexed as of May 2014.
They provide the user with a variety of scholarly material online ranging from journal articles to research
papers, dissertations, conference proceedings, technical reports, etc. It is easy to access impact factors, h-
index, i10index, etc., are also determined by Google scholar.

BDC or Australian Business Deans Council

ABDC or Australian Business Deans Council is an academic community guided by business deans in
Australia. It has a quality journal list in domains like Economics, Management, Business Development,
etc. The next one is Crossref, it generates Digital Object Identification. It also deals with content
registration, reference linking, citation, similarity check, and funder registry. There are also other indexing
agencies such as Index Copernicus, BASE, and MIAR, etc.

Scopus and Web of Science Comparison: Strengths and Weaknesses

https://www.internauka.org/en/blog/scopus-vs-web-of-science

In modern science, the assessment of the effectiveness of researchers’ activities often implies the use of
scientometric indicators. They are calculated based on scientific publications, the information about which
is commonly stored in bibliographic databases.

The largest and most famous databases to date are Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The presence of
texts in these databases increases the scientist’s rating and favourably affects the work’s reliability level.
What Are Scopus and Web of Science?

Scopus and Web of Science are the largest worldwide-used citation databases. Today, these are the most
respected platforms for analysing peer-reviewed literature: scientific publications, conference
proceedings, and books.

What Is Web of Science?

The scientometric Web of Science (WoS) database consists of over 33,000 publications. WoS contains
such data filters as:
1. Title
2. Publication name
3. Year published
4. Author
5. Document type and more

A variety of sorting options allows browsing through large volumes of data fast.

Page 17 of 36
The basis of indexed Web of Science resources is comprised of scientific publications in natural, exact,
and social subject areas. Humanities publications appear in this database significantly less often.
Therefore, researchers specializing in humanities more often search editions to place their research on
Scopus.

What Is Scopus?
Scopus is one of the largest databases that hosts 23,700 titles from 5,000 publishers. Scopus contains:
 Scientific literature on various disciplines
 Articles
 Abstracts
 Books
 Collections of conferences
 Monographs

The publications are updated daily. Thus, users are provided with access to a large volume of the latest
information. It enables them to track current trends, as well as find colleagues for joint research. Scopus
has special tools that allow the researcher to go further into the field of research, data analysis, and
monitoring of link usage frequency.

What Is the Difference between Scopus and Web of Science?

WoS and Scopus share a lot of common features. Nevertheless, these databases have a couple of
significant differences. For instance, the Web of Science database allows deeper search of published
papers dating back to 1900, whereas Scopus covers more modern materials.

Besides, the topic of research is also important. While Web of Science collects information on the natural,
technical, and social sciences, Scopus also has a wide variety of publications in the humanities field,
although neither of them is considered to be specialised.

Scopus vs Web of Science: Which Database Is Better?

 When comparing the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers, there is no definite
answer regarding which database is better. Most users agree that these platforms complement each
other.
 Scopus offers a more extensive list of modern sources. An additional advantage of Scopus is the
implementation of an independent sourcing system. Moreover, its interface is often considered
more user-friendly.
 Web of Science, on the other hand, provides the most in-depth citation by source. Another
advantage of using WoS is the availability of a large volume of scientific literature published in
the past.
 Both systems subdivide sources into quartiles according to the citation level. Based on this
indicator, you can assess their quality.
 All in all, both platforms are equally efficient. They offer the functionality that allows the user to
achieve the assigned tasks without difficulties. The specific choice directly depends on the goals
pursued by the researcher.

Page 18 of 36
Google Scholar (GS) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1808/1808.05053.pdf
The launch of Google Scholar (GS) in November of 2004 brought the simplicity of Google searches to
the academic environment, and revolutionized the way researchers and the public searched, found, and
accessed academic information. Until that point, the coverage of academic databases depended on lists of
selected sources (usually scientific journals). In contrast, and using automated methods, Google Scholar
crawled the web and indexed any document with a seemingly academic structure. This inclusive approach
gave GS potentially more comprehensive coverage of the scientific and scholarly literature compared to
the two major existing multidisciplinary databases with selective journal-based inclusion policies, the Web
of Science (WoS) and Scopus (Orduna-Malea, Ayllón, Martín-Martín, & Delgado López-Cózar, 2015).
Although citation data in Google Scholar was originally intended to be a means of identifying the most
relevant documents for a given query, it could also be used for formal or informal research evaluations.
The availability of free citation data in Google Scholar, together with the free software Publish or Perish
(Harzing, 2007) to gather it made citation analysis possible without a citation database subscription
(Harzing & van der Wal, 2008). Nevertheless, GS has not enabled bulk access to its data, reportedly
because their agreements with publishers preclude it (Van Noorden, 2014). Thus, third-party web-scraping
software is currently the only practical way to extract more data from GS than permitted by Publish or
Perish.

Despite its known errors and limitations, which are consequence of its automated approach to document
indexing (Delgado López-Cózar, Robinson-García, & Torres-Salinas, 2014; Jacsó, 2010), GS has been
shown to be reliable and to have good coverage of disciplines and languages, especially in the Humanities
and Social Sciences, where WoS and Scopus are known to be weak (Chavarro, Ràfols, & Tang, 2018;
Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; van Leeuwen, Moed, Tijssen, Visser, & Van Raan, 2001).

Analyses of the coverage of GS, WoS, and Scopus across disciplines have compared the numbers of
publications indexed or their average citation counts for samples of documents, authors, or journals,
finding that GS consistently returned higher numbers of publications and citations (Harzing, 2013;
Harzing & Alakangas, 2016; Mingers & Lipitakis, 2010; Prins, Costas, van Leeuwen, & Wouters, 2016).
Citation counts from a range of different sources have been shown to correlate positively with GS citation
counts at various levels of aggregation (Amara & Landry, 2012; De Groote & Raszewski, 2012; Delgado
López-Cózar, Orduna-Malea, & Martín-Martín, 2018; Kousha & Thelwall, 2007; Martín-Martín, Orduna-
Malea, & Delgado López-Cózar, 2018; Meho & Yang, 2007; Minasny, Hartemink, McBratney, & Jang,
2013; Moed, Bar-Ilan, & Halevi, 2016; Pauly & Stergiou, 2005; Rahimi & Chandrakumar, 2014;
Wildgaard, 2015). See the supplementary materials 4 , Delgado López-Cózar et al. (2018), Orduña-Malea,
Martín-Martín, Ayllón, & Delgado López-Cózar (2016), and Halevi, Moed, & BarIlan (2017) for
discussions of the wider strengths and weaknesses of GS. A key issue is the ability of GS, WoS, and
Scopus to find citations to documents, and the extent to which they index citations that the others cannot
find. The results of prior studies are confusing, however, because they have examined different small (with
one exception) sets of articles.

A summary of the results found in these previous studies is presented in Table 1. For example, the number
of citations that are unique to GS varies between 13% and 67%, with the differences probably being due
to the study year or the document types or disciplines covered. The only multidisciplinary study (Moed et
al., 2016) checked articles in 12 journals from 6 subject areas, which is still a limited set.

Page 19 of 36
Supplementary materials available from https://dx.doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pqr53

What's the Difference?

Are you looking for "everything" published on a topic, or the most important papers? All three databases
have a large overlap in their coverage, and each covers material that the others do not. If you can only
search one, consider the differences in their selection criteria.

WoS covers many fewer journal than Scopus, but it selects only "top tier" journals: those most likely to
publish major scholarly papers.

Scopus covers more journals and more international journals than does WoS.
Google Scholar only includes papers if they have online abstracts or full-text. No one knows how much
of the scholarly literature they cover. With Google Scholar, you can't know what you are missing.
Do you need to identify core articles published before the dawn of the Internet? WoS has full citation data
for every paper it indexes back to 1900; Scopus has that data back to 1996.

Google Scholar goes back.

Do you need accurate citations for your paper's reference list or a bibliography? It's better to use Web of
Science or Scopus. Citation errors occur in all databases, but Google Scholar's bibliographic information
is extracted by robots performing an automated Web search. As Google points out, this system may lead
to incorrect identification of bibliographic information, especially if metadata on publisher Web sites is
irregular. You may notice citation errors and/or duplicate citations when you search Google Scholar.

How do you think the information you need will have been published? Google Scholar covers many more
types of documents than WoS and Scopus, e.g., dissertations, books, technical reports and more. Google
Scholar is great when you are looking for more than journal articles.

For a concise summary of similarities and differences, please see the table below which compares the
coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar:
https://libguides.mssm.edu/citation_analysis/db-coverage

COVERAGE Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar

Google Scholar indexes individual
Journal
12,000+ journals 21,000+ journals papers, not journals. It does not specify
Content
how many papers it indexes.
1996 to present for 60% of content,
1900 to present, coverage remaining 40% of content dates back
Coverage Not specified.
varies by title further, as far back as the 1820s in some
cases.
Interdisciplinary:
Interdisciplinary: science, technology,
Specialty Chemistry, medicine,
medicine, social sciences and arts & Not specified.
Areas science, social science,
humanities
arts & humanities

Page 20 of 36
 The Google Scholar about page
Scopus also includes metadata for over
indicates it indexes, "journal and
16,000 books and cross-searches 25.2
WoS also includes over conference papers, theses and
million patents from five patent offices
30,000 books, and dissertations, academic books, pre-
(US Patent & Trademark Office,
Comments conference proceedings prints, abstracts, technical reports,
European Patent Office, Japan Patent
for a large but unspecified court opinions, patents, and other
Office, World Intellectual Property
number of conferences. scholarly literature from all broad
Organization and the UK Intellectual
areas of research." For more info,
Property Office)
visit Google Scholar.

Calculating an H-Index Using Scopus

https://www.internauka.org/en/blog/calculating-an-h-Index-using-scopus

With the Scopus h-factor, you can easily realize the researcher’s value as it assesses both his impact and
productivity. This unit elaborated on how to learn an author h-index on Scopus – one of the most selective
abstract and citation databases of peer-reviewed research literature, books, journals, and conference
proceedings. Although Scopus is a subscription-based service, one can use Scopus Preview to view overall
information.

A Step-by-Step Guide on Learning H-Index on Scopus

Even though many online platforms offer calculating Hirsch index, Scopus’ h-index search is considered
most reliable. Here is a step-by-step guide on how to know author h-index in Scopus:

Step 1. Searching the Author

First, you need to open the author search form.

One of the options is to search for an author’s profile by their name and affiliation.

Page 21 of 36
Another option is to search for the author’s profile using the ORCID number. In recent years, more authors have
chosen to integrate their profiles within different platforms.

Let us see how it goes if we search for Smith J.L. from Northwestern University. Make sure you follow the example and enter the initials as “J.L.”, not “JL”.

Step 2. Analyzing the Search Results

It seems we provided enough information to find our researcher. At this point, you can already see the
Scopus h-index score in the table. Click on the name of the correct entry to access more detailed
information about the author.

Page 22 of 36
Step 3. Scopus Author Profile Page
Scopus Preview users can view metric overviews (including h-index) and document and citation trends,
as well as an author’s last ten documents.

Table: 1 Search date: 02-11-2021

Search term : Genome analysis in cancer in India

Web of Science Google Scholar Scopus
1081 370000 122

Table: 2
Search term : Genome analysis in cancer in India in 2021
Web of Science Google Scholar Scopus
129 27000 14

Table: 3
Search term : Genome analysis in cancer in India in 2021, Author: Richmond, RC

Page 23 of 36
Web of Science Google Scholar Scopus
91 33 69

Search term: Genome analysis in cancer in India (Web of Science Search

results:1081)

Search term: Genome analysis in cancer in India (Scopus Search results:122)

Search term: Genome analysis in cancer in India (Google Scholar Search

results:3,70,000)

Search limit 2021 (Results:129 in Web of Science)

Page 24 of 36
Search limit to 2021 (Results:14 in Scopus)

Search limit to 2021 (Search results: 27000 in Google Scholar)

Search with Author name: Richmond, RC

Search with Author name: Richmond, RC(Scopus)

Page 25 of 36
Search with Author: Richmond, RC

Citation Report (From Web of Sc)

Citation Report (From Google Scholar)

Page 26 of 36
Citation Report (Scopus)

Impact Metrics
As per IFLA journals (https://journals.sagepub.com/metrics/ifl) the following citation metrics are
produced by abstracting and indexing databases using their respective datasets. These metrics represent a
variety of methods for measuring the citation impact of published research on a journal level.
Scopus
a. CiteScore :2.000

b. Library and Information Sciences 62 out of 235

c. Scopus provides the journal’s CiteScore, which is calculated as the total citations made in the
CiteScore year and the prior three years to content published in the CiteScore year and the prior
three years, divided by the total number of items published by the journal in the CiteScore year
and prior three years.

d. Source-normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 0.879

SNIP calculates a journal’s average citations from the SNIP year to items published in the prior
three years, and divides the average by the citation potential in the journal’s subject area to account
for variability between subject categories.

e. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 0.463

Page 27 of 36
 Library and Information Sciences 67 out of 255
The SJR weighs incoming citations according to the prestige of the publications they come from.
Total, weighted citations made in the SCImago year to content published in a journal in the prior
three years are divided by the total number of items published by the journal in the prior three
years.
Google Scholar
g. h5-index 18
Google’s h5-index is calculated by finding the h-index for articles in a publication over the last
five complete calendar years, where h is equal to the number of articles over a five year period
that have at least h citations each.

j. h5-median 24
The h5-median is calculated by finding the median number of citations for the articles that
comprise a publication’s h5-index.
Journal Citation Reports (Source Clarivate, 2021), Scopus®, 2020 release and Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_hcore&venue=j4oi7P-90RYJ.2021&hl=en
.

6A.7 Summary

Historically, citation phenomenon is as old as writing (Horri, 2002). Garfield considered citation as a
mental and cultural process and believes that, citation is not just a list of data extracted from the citation
index, but it expresses the intertextuality relationship in citing and cited works ( Neshat, 2011).

Citation index communicates between previously written books and articles, and the articles that refer to
them. Through citation indexes, the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the scientific studies can be
achieved. Tracking citations is one of the oldest and most common methods of evaluating scientific
journals.

For years, traditional citation databases (such as Web of Science and Scopus) are detected citations and
journals are evaluated in this way. Before the advent of the web, only the bibliometrics method was used
to measure the impact of citations (Kousha, 2007a, p .213). On the other hand, the advent of the web and
the increasing dissemination of scientific and research works in this environment has created a wide range
of web-based citations which are traceable in the web environment. (Afsaneh Teymourikhani, 2017).

An index is a guide to the items contained in or concepts derived from a collection. Item denotes any book,
article, report, abstract review, etc. (textbook, part of a collection, passage in a book, an article in a journal,
etc.). An index is, thus, a working tool designed to help the user to find his way out the mass of documented
information in a given subject field, or document store.

In → library and information science (LIS), there have been different suggestions on how to define an
index [3] and the process of indexing.

Page 28 of 36
The function of indexing in libraries and information retrieval systems is to indicate the whereabouts or
absence of items relevant to a request. It is essentially a time-saving mechanism. Theoretically, we can
always find the relevant items by an exhaustive search through the whole collection (assuming that we
can recognize what is relevant when we see it).

The problem of vocabulary deals the rules for deciding which terms are admissible for membership in the
vocabulary. There is also a problem of how to determine the goodness or effectiveness of any vocabulary.
This implies that the system ranks each of the documents in the collection by the probability that it will
satisfy given query of the user. Thus, the output documents relating to a search query are ranked according
to their probability of satisfaction.

Indexing is the art of organizing published literature from journals and other publications so that
knowledge dissemination becomes hassle-free for scholars. Indexing refers to identifying or pointing to
something. To index also means to explore and to expose.

No index can provide perfect subject retrieval (100% recall and 100% precision), but clearly some indexes
are better than others. The most obvious quality criterion is whether all relevant concepts can be looked-
up in the index (having to do with be the exhaustivity of indexing and the specificity of the index language,
cf. Section 4.2 below). However, it is not just a matter of how many percent of the queries can be answered
in a satisfactory way — as the traditional thinking in information retrieval take as the basis for
improvement. It is also a question of perspectivism [62] — which kinds of queries are relatively well
served, and which kinds are relatively bad served — this being an implication of the view discussed above
that there is therefore no single correct set of index terms for a document. No indexing can therefore be
neutral in respect of perspective.

Citation databases compile the citations in the reference lists (bibliographies) of scholarly publications.
Citation database records also include bibliographic content that identify a publication: article title, journal
name, author, abstract, etc. https://libguides.mssm.edu/citation_analysis/dbs

6A.8 Questions
Frequently Asked Questions

What Is an H-Index?
The h-index is a measure that considers both the researcher’s productivity (number of publications) and
impact (number of citations to these publications).

Why Should I Care about an H-Index?

Evaluating a researcher’s value is more important and complicated than it might seem. If you disregard
the impact and only focus on the number of publications, you will end up with a researcher with a long
list of papers that very few people consider significant.

On the other hand, if you only care about the number of citations, you risk stumbling on an unsustainable
researcher with just a few successful papers. But once you combine these parameters, you get a reliable

Page 29 of 36
measure indicating the scientist’s performance – the h-index. It is well established that more successful
scientists tend to have higher h-indices.

Is Calculating My H-Index on Scopus Free?

Yes, but it is only possible if you have your articles published in Scopus-indexed journals.

6A.9 REFERENCES/ BIBLIOGRAPHY/ SELECT READING

1. https://www.lisbdnetwork.com/indexing-principles-and-process/
2. https://www.anzsi.org/about-indexing/types-indexing/
3. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/indexing
4. https://libguides.mssm.edu/citation_analysis/dbs
5. https://www.internauka.org/en/blog/scopus-vs-web-of-science
6. https://www.internauka.org/en/blog/calculating-an-h-Index-using-scopus
7. https://bibliometrie.info/downloads/DZHW-Comparison-DIM-SCP-WOS.PDF
8. https://libguides.mssm.edu/citation_analysis/db-coverage
9. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1808/1808.05053.pdf
10. http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1777/1/080-teymourikhani-en.pdf
11. https://journals.sagepub.com/metrics/ifl
12. Journal Citation Reports (Source Clarivate, 2021), Scopus®, 2020 release and Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_hcore&venue=j4oi7P-90RYJ.2021&hl=en
13.
14. https://www.internauka.org/en/blog/scopus-vs-web-of-science
15. American Society for Indexing.
2017. Software. https://web.archive.org/web/20170902091621/https://www.asindexing.org/reference-shelf/software/
16. http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1779/1/080-ezema-en.pdf
17. Andersen, Jack. 2004. Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: an inquiry into the
intellectual foundation of knowledge organization. Ph.D. dissertation. Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and
Information Science. Available at http://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/47069480/jack_andersen_phd.pdf.
18. Anderson, James D. 1989. “Indexing and classification: file organization and display for information retrieval”.
In Indexing: The State of Our Knowledge and the State of Our Ignorance: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Indexers, New York, May 13, 1998; edited by Bella H. Weinberg, Medford, NJ.: Learned Information:
71-82.
19. Anderson, James D. 1994. Book review “Subject Analysis and Indexing: Theoretical Foundation and Practical Advice by
Robert Fugmann”. Library Quarterly 64, no. 4: 475-477.
20. Anderson, James D. 1997. Guidelines for Indexes and Related Information Retrieval Devices. National Information
Standards Organization (NISO) Technical Report 2. Bethesda, MD NISO
Press. http://niso.kavi.com/publications/tr/tr02.pdf
21. Anderson, James D. and José Pérez-Carballo. 2001a. “The nature of Indexing: How Humans and Machines Analyze
Messages and Texts for Retrieval. Part I: Research, and the Nature of Human Indexing”. Information processing &
management 37: 231-54.
22. Anderson, James D. and José Pérez-Carballo. 2001b. “The nature of Indexing: How Humans and Machines Analyze
Messages and Texts for Retrieval. Part II: Machine Indexing, and the Allocation of Human versus Machine
Effort”. Information processing & management 37: 255-77.
23. Anderson, James D. and José Pérez-Carballo. 2005. Information Retrieval Design: Principles and Options for Information
Description, Organization, Display and Access in Information Retrieval Databases, Digital Libraries, Catalogs, and
Indexes. St. Petersburg, Fl: Ometeca Institute. Available as HTML
at: https://web.archive.org/web/20050427201926/http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/publications/ir-design/.
24. Austin, Derek (1974). PRECIS: a Manual of Concept Analysis and Subject Indexing. London: The Council of the British
National Bibliography.

Page 30 of 36
25. Barité, Mario. In Press. “Literary Warrant”. Knowledge Organization. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Organization, edited by Birger Hjørland, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/literary_warrant.
26. Bates, Marcia J. 1988. “How to Use Controlled Vocabularies More Effectively in Online Searching”. Online 12, no. 6: 45-
56.
27. Beghtol, Clare. 1986. “Bibliographic Classification Theory and Text Linguistics: Aboutness Analysis, Intertextuality and
the Cognitive Act of Classifying Documents”. Journal of Documentation 42, no. 2: 84-113.
28. Bell, Hazel K. 1991. “Bias in Indexing and Loaded Language”. The Indexer 17, no. 3: 173-7.
29. Bernier, Charles L. 1980. "Subject indexes". In: Kent, Allen; Lancour, Harold & Daily, Jay E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science: Volume 29. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 191-205.
30. Bourcier, Paul, Heather Dunn and the Nomenclature Task Force. 2015. Nomenclature 4.0 for Museum Cataloging: Robert
G. Chenhall´s System for Classifying Cultural Objects. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield and the American Association
for State and Local History.
31. Borko, Harold. 1977. “Towards a Theory of Indexing”. Information Processing & Management 13, no. 6: 355-365.
32. Borko, Harold and Charles L. Bernier. 1978. Indexing Concepts and Methods. New York: Academic Press.
33. Brenner, Diane and Marilyn Rowland (eds.). 2000. Beyond Book Indexing: How to Get Started in Web Indexing, and Other
Computer-Based Media. Phoenix, AZ: American Society of Indexers / Information Today.
34. Brito, Marcilio de, Widad Mustafa El Hadi, Maja Žumer, Simone Bastos Vieira and Marcos de Brito. 2018. "Document
representation with images: an experimental milestone". Advances in Knowledge Organization 16: 167-75.
35. Browne, Glenda and Jon Jermey. 2007. The Indexing Companion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36. BS 3700: 1988. British Standard Recommendations for Preparing Indexes to Books, Periodicals, and Other Documents.
Second edition. London: British Standards Institute.
37. Buckland, Michael. 2018. “Document Theory”. In ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, edited by Birger
Hjørland. Available at: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/document (Later also to be published in Knowledge Organization).
38. Cavnar, William B. and John M. Trenkle. 1994. “N-Gram-Based Text Categorization”. In Proceedings of SDAIR-94, 3rd
Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, Las Vegas, US, April 11-13, 1994. Las Vegas,
Nevada: Information Science Research Institute, University of Nevad, 161-
175. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.21.3248&rep=rep1&type=pdf
39. Chan, Lois Mai. 1994. Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Chatterjee, Amitabha (2016). Elements of Information Organization and Dissemination. Cambridge, MA: Chandos.
41. Guimaräes, José Augusto Chaves. 2017. “Slanted Knowledge Organization as a New Ethical Perspective”. In The
Organization of Knowledge: Caught Between Global Structures and Local Meaning, edited by Jack Andersen and Laura
Skouvig. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 87-102.
42. Chicago Manual of Style. 2017. Seventeenth edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (The Chapter Indexes is
also issued as a separate book).
43. Chu, Heting. 2001. “Research in Image Indexing and Retrieval as Reflected in the Literature”. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 52, no. 12: 1011-18.
44. Cleverdon, Cyril W. and Jack Mills. 1963. “The Testing of Index Language Devices”. Aslib Proceedings 15, no. 4: 106-
30.
45. Cooper, William S. 1969. “Is Interindexer Consistency a Hobgoblin?” American Documentation 20, no. 3: 268-78.
46. Cooper, William S. 1978. “Indexing Documents by Gedanken Experimentation”. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science 29, no. 3: 107-19.
47. Craven, Timothy C. 1986. String Indexing. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life. London: J. Murray.
49. David, Claire, L. Giroux, Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy and D. Lanteigne 1995. “Indexing as Problem Solving: A Cognitive
Approach to Consistency”. In Forging New Partnerships in Information: Converging Technologies: Proceedings of the
58th ASIS Annual Meeting 32, edited by T. Kinney. Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for
Information Science, 49-55. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.2701&rep=rep1&type=pdf
50. Diaz, Alejandro. 2008. “Through the Google Googles: Sociopolitical Bias in Search Engine Design”. In Web Search:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Amanda Spink and Michael Zimmer. Berlin: Springer, 11-34.
51. Diodato, Virgil and Gretchen Gandt. 1991. "Back of the Book Indexes and the Characteristics of Author and Nonauthor
Indexing: Report of an Exploratory Study". Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42: 341-50.

Page 31 of 36
52. Dousa, Thomas and Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan. 2014. “Epistemological and Methodological Eclecticism in the Construction
of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) The Case of Analytico-synthetic KOSs.” Advances in Knowledge
Organization 14, 152-159.
53. Dragusin, Radu, Paula Petcu, Christina Lioma, Birger Larsen, Henrik L. Jørgensen, Ingemar J. Cox, Lars Kai Hansen,
Peter Ingwersen and Ole Winther. 2013a. “FindZebra: A Search Engine for Rare Diseases”. International Journal of
Medical Informatics 82, no. 6: 528-38. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613000166
54. Dragusin, Radu, Paula Petcu, Christina Lioma, Birger Larsen, Henrik L. Jørgensen, Ingemar J. Cox, Lars Kai Hansen,
Peter Ingwersen and Ole Winther. 2013b. “Specialised Tools are Needed when Searching the Web for Rare Disease
Diagnoses”. Rare Diseases 1, no. 1: 1-4.
doi:10.4161/rdis.25001. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rdis.25001
55. Farradane, Jason E. L. 1977. Relational Indexing: Introduction and Indexing (also with the title: String indexing: relational
indexing: introduction and indexing). London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, School of Library and Information
Science.
56. Farradane, Jason E. L. 1980. “Knowledge, Information, and Information Science”. Journal of Information Science 2, no.
2: 75-80.
57. Farrow, John D. 1991. “A Cognitive Process Model of Document Indexing”. Journal of documentation 47: 149–66.
58. Farrow, John D. 1994. “Indexing as a Cognitive Process”. In Kent, Allen, ed., Encyclopedia of library and information
science 53 supp. 16. New York: Marcel Dekker, 155-71.
59. Farrow, John D. 1995. “All in the Mind: Concept Analysis in Indexing”. The indexer 19, no. 4: 243–47.
60. Feinberg, Hilda. 1973. Title Derivative Indexing Techniques: A Comparative Study. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
61. Finnemann, Niels Ole. 2018. “E-text“. In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. Editor-in-chief: Paula
Rabinowitz. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-47. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.272
62. Foskett, Douglas John. 1970. Classification for a General Indexing Language. London: The Chartered Institute of Library
and Information Professionals (CILIP).
63. Fraenkel, Carlos, Dario Perinetti, and Justin E.H. Smith. 2011. “Introduction”. In The Rationalists: Between Tradition and
Innovation, edited by Carlos Fraenkel, Dario Perinetti and Justin E.H. Smith. Dordrecht: Springer.
64. Frohmann, Bernd. 1990. “Rules of Indexing: A Critique of Mentalism in Information Retrieval Theory”. Journal of
Documentation 46, no. 2: 81-101.
65. Fugmann, Robert. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Information Supply and Indexing”. International Classification 6, no.1: 3-
15.
66. Fugmann, Robert. 1985. “The Five-Axiom Theory of Indexing and Information Supply”. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science 36, no. 2: 116-129.
67. Fugmann, Robert. 1992. “Indexing Quality - Predictability versus Consistency”. International Classification 19, no. 1: 20-
21.
68. Fugmann, Robert. 1993. Subject Analysis and Indexing: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Advice. Frankfurt/Main:
Index Verlag.
69. Fugmann, Robert. 1997. “Bridging the Gap between Database Indexing and Book Indexing”. Knowledge Organization 24,
no. 4: 205·212. (Corrections in Knowledge Organization 25, nos. 1-2: 35).
70. Furner, Jonathan. 2012. “FRSAD and the Ontology of Subjects of Works”. Cataloging & classification quarterly 50, nos.
5-7: 494-516.
71. Gartner, Richard. 2016. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web. Cham: Springer.
72. Gnoli, Claudio. 2018. “Notation”. In ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Organization. http://www.isko.org/cyclo/notation (Also to be published in Knowledge Organization).
73. Granka, Laura A. 2010. “The Politics of Search: A Decade Retrospective”. The Information Society 26, no. 5: 364-74.
74. Gross, Tina, Arlene G. Taylor and Daniel N. Joudrey. 2015. “Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in
Keyword Searching”. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 1: 1-39.
75. Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves. 2017. “Slanted Knowledge Organization as a New Ethical Perspective”. In The
Organization of Knowledge: Caught Between Global Structures and Local Meaning, edited by Jack Andersen and Laura
Skouvig. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 87-102.
76. Haider, Salman. 2017. “Chain Indexing”. In Librarianship Studies & Information Technology.
(Blog). https://librarianshipstudies.blogspot.dk/2017/04/chain-indexing.html WebCite
version: http://www.webcitation.org/6x9gc5MMr

Page 32 of 36
77. Hanna, Robert. 1998. “Conceptual Analysis”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, ed. Edward Craig.
London: Routledge, Vol. 2, 518-22.
78. Hanna, Robert. 2007. “Kant, Wittgenstein and the Fate of Analysis”. In The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic
Philosophy and Phenomenology. Edited by Michael Beaney. London: Routledge, 147-63.
79. Hargittai, Eszter. 2007. “The Social, Political, Economic, and Cultural Dimensions of Search Engines: An
Introduction”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 3: 769-77.
80. Harper, Douglas. 2017. “Index”. In Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 2017-12-30
from: https://www.etymonline.com/word/index (Archived version http://www.webcitation.org/6w67X5nJn).
81. Hedden, Heather. 2007. Indexing Specialties: Web Sites. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
82. Henttonen, Pekka. 2015. “Dimensions of Contextual Records Management Classifications”. Knowledge Organization 42,
no. 7: 477-85.
83. Hjørland, Birger. 1992. "The concept of "subject" in information science". Journal of Documentation 48, no. 2: 172-200.
84. Hjørland, Birger. 1997. Information seeking and subject representation. An activity-theoretical approach to information
science. Westport & London: Greenwood Press.
85. Hjørland, Birger. 2011. “The Importance of Theories of Knowledge: Indexing and Information Retrieval as an
Example”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62, no. 1:72-77.
86. Hjørland, Birger. 2012. “Is Classification Necessary after Google?” Journal of Documentation 68, 3: 299-317.
87. Hjørland, Birger. 2013a. “Theories of Knowledge Organization—Theories of Knowledge.” Knowledge Organization 40:
169-181.
88. Hjørland, Birger. 2013b. “User-based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization: A Theoretical
Analysis of the Research Literature”. Knowledge Organization 40, no. 1: 11-27.
89. Hjørland, Birger. 2015a. “Are Relations in Thesauri ‘Context Free, Definitional, and True in all Possible
Worlds’?" Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, no. 7: 1367-1373.
90. Hjørland, Birger. 2015b. “Classical Databases and Knowledge Organization: A Case for Boolean Retrieval and Human
Decision-Making During Searches”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, no. 8: 1559-
1575.
91. Hjørland, Birger 2017a. “Classification”. Knowledge Organization 44, no. 2: 97-128. Also available
at http://www.isko.org/cyclo/classification
92. Hjørland, Birger 2017b. “Subject (of Documents)”. Knowledge Organization 44, no.1: 55-64. Also available in ISKO
Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/subject.
93. Hjørland, Birger (in press 2018). “Library and Information Science (LIS)”. Knowledge Organization. Also available
at: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/lis.
94. Hjørland, Birger and Lykke Kyllesbech Nielsen. 2001. ”Subject Access Points in Electronic Retrieval”. Annual review of
information science and technology 35, 249-98.
95. Indexing Process and Principles https://www.lisbdnetwork.com/indexing-principles-and-process/
96. Intner, Sheila S. 1984. “Censorship in Indexing”. The Indexer 14, no. 2: 105-108.
97. Introna, Lucas D. and Helen Nissenbaum. 2000. “Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters”. The
Information Society 16, no. 3: 169-185.
98. ISO 999:1996 Information and documentation—Guidelines for the content, organization and presentation of indexes.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. (Reviewed and confirmed in 2015).
99. ISO 5963:1985. Documentation. Methods for Examining Documents, Determining Their Subjects, and Selecting Indexing
Terms. Genève: International Organization for Standardization.
100. Jonker, Frederick. 1964. Indexing Theory, Indexing Methods and Search Devices. New York: Scarecrow Press.
101. Jörgensen, Corinne. 2017. “Still Image Indexing”. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Fourth Edition.
Edited by John D. McDonald and Michael Levine-Clark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Vol VII, 4407-16.
102. Kaszkiel, Marcin. Justin Zobel and Ron Sacks-Davis. 1999. “Efficient Passage Ranking for Document Databases”. ACM
Transactions on Information Systems 17, no. 4: 406-439.
103. Keen, Edward Michael and Jeremy A. Digger. 1972. Report of an Information Science Index Languages Test.
Aberystwyth: Aberystwyth College of Librarianship, Wales, Department of Information Retrieval Studies.
104. Kendrick, Peter A. and Enid L. Zafran. (Eds.). 2001. Indexing Specialties: Law. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
105. Keyser, Pierre de. 2012. Indexing: From Thesauri to the Semantic Web. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
106. Klement, Susan. 2002. “Open-System versus Closed-System Indexing: A Vital Distinction”. The Indexer 23, no.1: 23–24.
107. Knight, G. Norman. 1979. Indexing, the Art of: A Guide to the Indexing of Books and Periodicals. London: Allen & Unwin.

Page 33 of 36
108. Krarup, Karl and Ivan Boserup. 1982. Reader-Oriented Indexing: An Investigation into the Extent to which Subject
Specialists should be used for the Indexing of Documents by and for Professional Readers, based on a Sample of
Sociological Documents Indexed with the Help of the PRECIS Indexing System. Copenhagen: The Royal Library.
109. Lancaster, Frederick Wilfrid. 1968. Information Retrieval Systems: Characteristics, Testing and Evaluation. New York:
Wiley.
110. Lancaster, Frederick Wilfrid. 1991. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
111. Lancaster, Frederick Wilfrid. 1994. “Review of Subject analysis and indexing, by Robert Fugmann”. Journal of
Documentation 50: 149-52.
112. Lancaster, Frederick Wilfrid. 2003. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. 3. ed. London: Facet Publishing.
113. Landry, Bertrand Clovis and James E. Rush. 1975. “Automatic Indexing: Progress and Prospects”. In Encyclopedia of
Computer Science and Technology Volume 2, edited by Jack Baizer, Albert Holzman and Allen Kent. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 403-448.
114. Laporte, Steven. (2018). “Ideal Language”. Knowledge Organization. Also in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/ideal_language.
115. Leinnger, Kurt. 2000. “Interindexer Consistency in PsycINFO”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 32,
no.1: 4-8.
116. Leonard, Lawrence E. 1977. Inter-Indexer Consistency Studies, 1954-1975: A Review of the Literature and Summary of
Study Results. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library Science.
117. Lewandowski, Dirk. 2014. “Why We Need an Independent Index of the Web”. In König, R & Rasch, M. (ed.), Society of
the Query Reader: Reflections on Web Search. Amsterdam: Institute of Network
Cultures. http://networkcultures.org/query/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/4.Dirk%5FLewandowski.pdf
118. Lewandowski, Dirk. 2015. “Living in a World of Biased Search Engines”. Online Information Review 39, no. 3: 278-80.
119. Library of Congress. 2008. The Subject Headings Manual. Washington, DC.: Library of Congress, Policy and Standards
Division.
120. Loukopoulos, Loukas. 1966. “Indexing Problems and Some of Their Solutions”. American Documentation 17, no. 1: 17-
25.
121. Mager, Astrid. 2012. “Algorithmic Ideology. How Capitalist Society Shapes the Search Engines”. Information,
Communication & Society 15, no. 5: 769-87.
122. Markey, Karen. 1984. “Interindexer Consistency Tests: A Literature Review and a Report of Test of Consistency in
Indexing Visual Materials”. Library and Information Science Research 6, no. 2: 155-177.
123. Mai Chan, Lois. 2005. Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles and Application. Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
124. Mai, Jens-Erik. 2000. The Subject Indexing Process: An Investigation of Problems in Knowledge Representation. PhD
dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
125. Maron, Melvin Earl "Bill". 2008. “An Historical Note on the Origins of Probabilistic Indexing”. Information Processing
& Management 44, no. 2: 971-972.
126. Mazzocchi, Fulvio. 2018. “Knowledge Organization System (KOS): An Introductory Critical Account.” Knowledge
Organization 45, no. 1: 54-78. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Organization: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/kos
127. Miksa, Francis L. 2006. “The DDC Relative Index”. In Moving Beyond the Presentation Layer: Context and Content in
the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System; Mitchell, J.S., Vizine-Goetz, D., Eds.; Binghamton, NY Haworth Press,
65–95. Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 42, nos. 3-4: 65-95.
128. Milstead, Jessica L. 1984. Subject Access Systems: Alternatives in Design. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
129. Morville, Peter and Louis Rosenfeld. 2007. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. 3. edition. Sebastopol, CA:
O´Reilly Media.
130. Mulvany, Nancy C. 1994. “The Author and the Index”. The Indexer 19, no.1: 28-30.
131. Mulvany, Nancy C. 2005. Indexing Books. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
132. Mulvany, Nancy C. 2010. 'Back-of-the-Book Indexing', Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition,
edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Vol. 1: 485-491.
133. Mulvany, Nancy C. 2017. 'Back-of-the-Book Indexing', Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Fourth
Edition, edited by John D. McDonald and Michael Levine-Clark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 440-6.
134. Nagel, Thomas (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 34 of 36
135. Nickles, Thomas (2005). “Empiricism”. In New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribners &
Sons. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/empiricism.aspx; a closely related article by the same author is available
at: http://science.jrank.org/pages/9140/Empiricism-Twentieth-Century-Beyond.html
136. Olson, Hope A. 2002. The Power to Name: Locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
137. Pariser, Eli (2011). Filter bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Viking.
138. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1931-58). Collected Writings (8 Vols.). Edited by Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss and Arthur W
Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
139. Rafferty, Pauline. 2017. “Tagging”. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Organization. http://www.isko.org/cyclo/tagging (To be published in Knowledge Organization).
140. Rafferty, Pauline and Rob Hidderley. 2005. Indexing Multimedia and Creative Works: The Problems of Meaning and
Interpretation. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
141. Ranganathan, Shiyali Ramamrita. 1938. Theory of Library Catalogue. Madras: The Madras Library Association.
142. Ranganathan, Shiyali Ramamrita. 1963. Documentation and Its Facets. New York: Asia Publishing House.
143. Ranganathan, Shiyali Ramamrita and Malur Aji Gopinath. 1967. Prolegomena to Library Classification, Third Edition.
London: Asia Publishing House.
144. Rasmussen Neal, Diane. 2012. Indexing and Retrieval of Non-Text Information. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
145. Rothman, John. 1974. „Index, Indexer, Indexing“. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science Vol. 11, edited by
Allen Kent, Harold Lancour and Jay E. Daily. New York: Marcel Dekker, 286-299.
146. Salton, Gerard and C. S. Yang. 1973. “On the Specification of Term Values in Automatic Indexing”. Journal of
Documentation 29: 351-72.
147. Schroeder, Sandi (ed.). 2003. Software for Indexing. Medford, NJ: Information Today, in association with the American
Society of Indexers. https://books.google.dk/books?id=6_LJ1g4rQgcC
148. Shepherd, M. A. (1981). “Text Passage Retrieval Based on Colon Classification: Retrieval Performance”. Journal of
Documentation 37, no 1 : 25-35.
149. Shera, Jesse. H. 1951. "Classification as the basis of bibliographic organization". In Bibliographic Organization: Papers
presented before the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School July 24-29, 1950 ed. Jesse H. Shera and
Margaret E. Egan, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 72-93.
150. Smiraglia, Richard P. and Xin Cai. 2017. “Tracking the Evolution of Clustering, Machine Learning, Automatic Indexing
and Automatic Classification in Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization 44, no. 3: 215-33.
151. Smith, Laurence D. 1986. Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance. Stanford, CA.: Stanford
University Press.
152. Sober, Elliott. 1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution and Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
153. Soergel, Dagobert. 1974. Indexing Languages and Thesauri: Construction and Maintenance. Los Angeles, CA: Melville
Publishing.
154. Soergel, Dagobert. 1985. Organizing information: Principles of data base and retrieval systems. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
155. Soler Monreal, M. Concha and Isidoro Gil-Leiva. 2011. "Evaluation of Controlled Vocabularies by Inter-Indexer
Consistency". Information Research, 16(4), paper 502. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/16-4/paper502.html
156. Spang-Hanssen, Henning. 1974. ”Kunnskapsorganisasjon, Informasjonsgjenfinning, Automatisering og Språk.
In Kunnskapsorganisasjon og Informasjonsgjenfinning. Oslo : Riksbibliotektjenesten, 11-61.
157. Spang-Hanssen, Henning. 1976. Roles and Links Compared with Grammatical Relations in Natural Languages. Lyngby,
Denmark: Dansk Teknisk Litteraturselskab.
158. Spärck Jones, Karen. 1972. “A Statistical Interpretation of Term Specificity and Its Application in Retrieval”. Journal of
Documentation 28, 111-21.
159. Spärck Jones, Karen. 1973 “Does Indexing Exhaustivity Matter?” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 24: 313-6.
160. Stock, Wolfgang G. and Mechtild Stock. 2013. Handbook of Information Science. Berlin, de Gruyter. (Chapter N1:
Intellectual Indexing, 759-71; N2: Automatic Indexing, 722-80; P.2 Evaluation of Indexing and Summarization, 817-825).
161. Suchting, Wal. 2012. “Empiricism”. Historical Materialism 20, no. 3: 213–8. (Translated from German to English by Peter
Thomas).
162. Svenonius, Elaine. 2003. “Design of Controlled Vocabularies”. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science second
edition, edited by Miriam A. Drake. New York: Marcel Dekker, 822-38.

Page 35 of 36
163. Swanson, Don R. 1986. “Undiscovered Public Knowledge”. The Library Quarterly 56, no. 2: 103-18.
164. Swift, Donald F., Viola A. Winn and Dawn A. Bramer. 1973. A Case Study in Indexing and Classification in the Sociology
of Education. Milton Keynes (Bletchley), Open University, 2 vols. (OSTI Report no.
5171). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED086258.pdf
165. Swift, Donald F., Viola A. Winn and Dawn A. Bramer. 1977. "A Multi-Modal Approach to Indexing and
Classification." International Classification 4, no. 2: 90-4.
166. Swift, Donald F., Viola A. Winn and Dawn A. Bramer. 1978. “'Aboutness' as a Strategy for Retrieval in the Social
Sciences." Aslib Proceedings 30, no. 5: 182-7.
167. Swift, Donald F., Viola A. Winn and Dawn A. Bramer. 1979. “A Sociological Approach to the Design of Information
Systems”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 30, no. 4: 215-223.
168. Taube, Mortimer and Associates. 1953. Studies in Coordinate Indexing, vol. I. Washington, D.C.: Documentation
Inc. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082966196;view=1up;seq=5
169. Towery, Margie. (Ed.). 1998. Indexing Specialties: History. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
170. Turner, James M. 2017. “Moving Image Indexing”. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Fourth Edition.
Edited by John D. McDonald and Michael Levine-Clark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Vol. V, 3129-3139.
171. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2018. “Frequently Asked Questions About Indexing for MEDLINE. Who are the
Indexers, and What are Their Qualifications? ”. Retrieved 2018-03-03
from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/indexfaq.html#qualifications; WebCitation available
at: http://www.webcitation.org/6xeH1IGVN.
172. van Rijsbergen, Cornelis Joost. 1979. Information Retrieval. Second Edition. London: Butterworths. Available in both
HTML and PDF from: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/Keith/Preface.html
173. Vickery, Brian C. 1997. “Ontologies”. Journal of Information Science 23, no. 4: 277-86.
174. Warner, Julian. 2004. “Meta- and Object-Language for Information Retrieval Research: Proposal for a Distinction”. Aslib
Proceedings 56, no. 2: 112-117.
175. Warner, Julian. 2010. Human Information Retrieval. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
176. Watson, L. E., P. Gammage, M. C. Grayshon, S. Hockey, R. K. Jones and D. Oldman. 1973. “Sociology and Information
Science”. Journal of Librarianship 5, no. 4: 270-83.
177. Webster’s 1966. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. College edition. Cleveland Ohio: World
Publishing Co.
178. Weinberg, Bella Hass. 2007. “Known Orders: Unusual Locators in Indexes”. Indexer 25, no. 4: 243–252.
179. Weinberg, Bella Hass. 2010. 'Indexing: History and Theory', Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third
Edition, edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Vol. 3: 2277—90.
180. Weinberg, Bella Hass. 2017. “Indexing: History and Theory”. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Fourth
Edition. Edited by John D. McDonald and Michael Levine-Clark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1978-1991.
181. Wellisch, Hans H. 1996. “Index: The Word, Its History and Meanings”. In Indexing from A to Z, 2nd Ed.; H.W. Wilson:
New York, 199-210.
182. Wikipedia. Concordance. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordance%5F%28publishing%29
183. Wilson, Patrick. 1968. Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley: University of California Press.
184. Wyman, L. Pilar. (Ed.). 1999. Indexing Specialities: Medicine. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
185. Žumer, Maja. 2017. "IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM): Harmonisation of the FRBR Family". ISKO Encyclopedia
of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/lrm
186. http://ijariie.com/AdminUploadPdf/An_Introduction_to_Indexing_and_Peer_review_Process_ijariie10866.pdf
187.

Page 36 of 36