http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/24/googles-new-scholar-metrics-have-potential-but-also-prove-problematic/

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/24/universal-citation-paper-lacks-universality/

http://www.library.tufts.edu/hsl/subjectguides/Authormetrics.html

Webcast > Article-Level Metrics | Peter Binfield | April 12, 2012

Webcast Now Available

http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2012/03/webcast-article-level-metrics-peter.html

Post-Publication Peer Review: What Value Do Usage-Based Metrics Offer?

http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2012/04/post-publication-peer-review-what-value.html

Is Google Scholar Useful for Bibliometrics? A Webometric Analysis

http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-google-scholar-useful-for.html

... Open Access Will Open New Ways to Measure Scientific Output

http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2012/04/open-access-will-open-new-ways-to.html

"" SCImago Journal & Country Rankhttp://www.scimagojr.com/

Journal Quality List - Compiled and edited by Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing http://www.harzing.com/jql.htm

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics/
http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities.html
--
http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2012-01/
http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/the-research-excellence-framework-revisiting-the-rae-2/
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/ausbiblioconference/Charles_OPPENHEIM-Keynote.pdf
http://www.tonybates.ca/2009/03/23/meaning-and-metrics-assessment-in-the-humanities/
http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/10a6457b-2fe6-4605-9e93-3def083ff7c5/KPI-Humanities-Barkhoff-presentation-March-09.pdf.aspx
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/01/21/metrics-for-the-humanitie/

Isobel Stark and Michael Whitton - Southampton - Google Scholar: Can it be used for bibliometrics?

This was an interesting talk. First was a discussion on the pro's and cons of using Google for bibliometrics:

Pros:
Easy to use and free. Wide range of articles e.g. book chapters and conference proceedings so it's especially useful for law, humanities, social sciences. Metrics tend to be a higher number because more material is indexed but also there is some duplication.
Cons:
Data can be poor quality and it is not transparent where the data comes from; there's a lack of de-dupe; there are big gaps in subject coverage; the indexing (esp. subject indexing) is naff and this makes it difficult to narrow to a particular authors work; citation matching can be flaky (relies on algorithms to do this).

Isobel listed some services that are good with scholar: Quadsearch; Scholar H-index calculator (FF add-on); Scholarometer. Publisher or perish.

There was also some useful references to the literature on the subject:
Bar-Illan (2008) - Israeli highly cited researchers - differences between Wos and scopus.
Jasco (2008) - problems with the data, issues around transparency.
Franceshet (2009) - computer science metrics higher as computer scientists publish in conference proceedings.
Lee (2009) - neurosurgery - Google scholar and scopus very close.
Mingers (2010) - Business and management - google metrics higher.

Isobel made the point that you need to know the work well as Scholar doesn't deduplicate and doesn't have institutional affiliation.

Southampton bibliometrics guides are open access www.soton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics - interestingly the Google Scholar guide has been accessed far more than others!

The discussion on whether to use Google Scholar was useful. I thought it was an interesting point that if someone asks for a H index without specifying where it's come from then they probably don't understand what they are asking for - is it then fair game to give them the highest figure?

As an interesting aside the Thompson Reuters rep in the room disclosed that they are releasing a book chapter citation database in November.