A two-sided academic landscapesnapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)

  1. Alberto Martín-Martín 1
  2. Enrique Orduna-Malea 2
  3. Juan M. Ayllón 1
  4. Emilio Delgado López-Cózar 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada, España
  2. 2 Universitat Politècnica de València, España
Revista:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 39

Número: 4

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2016.4.1405 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de documentación científica

Resumen

El principal objetivo de este trabajo es identificar el conjunto de documentos altamente citados en Google Scholar y definir sus características nucleares (tipología documental, idioma, disponibilidad en abierto, fuentes y número de versiones), bajo la hipótesis de que la amplia cobertura del buscador podría proporcionar un retrato diferente de este conjunto documental a la ofrecida por las bases de datos tradicionales. Para ello, se ha realizado una consulta por año (desde 1950 hasta 2013) identificando los 1000 documentos más citados y obteniendo una muestra final de 64.000 registros (el 40% de los cuales proporcionaban un enlace al texto completo). Los resultados muestran que el documento altamente citado “promedio” es un artículo de revista o libro (éstos constituyen el 62% del top 1% de los documentos más citados de la muestra), escrito en inglés (92.5%) y disponible online en PDF (86% de la muestra). Aun así, se debe indicar la existencia de errores especialmente en la detección de documentos duplicados y en la correcta vinculación de citas. En todo caso, la muestra manejada (documentos altamente citados) minimiza los efectos de dichas limitaciones. Dada la alta presencia de libros (manuales) y, en menor medida, de otras tipologías documentales (como congresos o informes), se concluye que Google Scholar ofrece una visión original y diferente del conjunto de documentos académicos más influyentes (medidos desde la perspectiva de la contabilización de citas), conformado no sólo por material estrictamente científico (artículos en revistas), sino académico en sentido amplio.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguillo, I. F.; Ortega, J.; Fernández, M.; Utrilla, A. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, vol. 82 (3), 477-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0183-y
  • Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, vol. 91 (2), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8
  • Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, vol. 12 (3), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776645
  • Aksnes, D. W.; Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, vol. 59 (2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000018529.58334.eb
  • Archambault, E.; Amyot, D.; Deschamps, P.; Nicol, A.; Rebout, L.; Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. Science-Metrix. Report. Science Matrix Inc. In : http:// www. science-metrix. com/ pdf/ SM_ EC_ OA_ Availability_ 2004-2011. pdf
  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, vol. 82(3), 495-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9
  • Beel, J.; Gipp, B.; Wilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO): Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar and Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 41 (2), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.41.2.176
  • Björk, B. C.; Welling, P.; Laakso, M.; Majlender, P.; Hedlund, T.; Gudnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, vol. 5(6), e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 PMid:20585653 PMCid:PMC2890572
  • Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 4 (3), 441–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.04.004
  • Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R. (2011). Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: the avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 5 (1), 228-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.009
  • Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.; Rahm, E.; Thor, A.; Daniel, H. D. (2009). Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 3 (1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001
  • Bornmann, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.; Leydesdorff, L. (2011). The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 6(2), 333-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006
  • Garfield, E. (1977). Introducing Citation Classics: the human side of scientific papers. Current Contents, vol. 3 (1), 1-2.
  • Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics, vol. 1(4), 359- 375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306
  • Garfield, E. (2005). The Agony and the Ecstasy— The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, 16 September. In: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/ jifchicago2005.pdf
  • Glänzel, W.; Czerwon, H. J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980–1989. Research Evaluation, vol. 2 (3), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/2.3.135
  • Glänzel, W.; Schubert, A. (1992). Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, vol. 25 (3), 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016926
  • Glänzel, W.; Rinia, E. J.; Brocken, M. G. (1995). A bibliometric study of highly cited European physics papers in the 80s. Research Evaluation, vol. 5 (2), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/5.2.113
  • Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, vol. 94 (3), 1057-1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7
  • Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (1), 565-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y
  • Harzing, A.W.; Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 8 (1), 61- 73. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00076
  • Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online information review, vol. 29 (2), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520510598066
  • Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated, and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, vol. 30 (3), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610675816
  • Jacsó, P. (2008a). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Information Review, vol. 32 (4), 524-535. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810897403
  • Jacsó, P. (2008b). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, vol. 32 (3), 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810889718
  • Jacsó, P. (2012). Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h-index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia – siren songs and air-raid sirens. Online Information Review, vol. 36 (3), 462-478. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211241503
  • Jamali, H. R.; Nabavi, M. (2015). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics, vol. 105 (3), 1635-1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2
  • Khabsa, M.; Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One, vol. 9(5), e93949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 PMid:24817403 PMCid:PMC4015892
  • Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, vol. 74 (2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x
  • Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 62 (11), 2147-2164. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21608
  • Kresge, N.; Simoni, R. D.; Hill, R. L. (2005). The most highly cited paper in publishing history: Protein determination by Oliver H. Lowry. Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280 (28), e25. http://www.jbc.org/content/280/28/e25
  • Levitt, J. M.; Thelwall, M. (2009). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, vol. 78 (1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1927-1
  • Maltrás Barba, B. (2003). Los indicadores bibliométricos: fundamentos y aplicación al análisis de la ciencia. Gijón: Trea.
  • Martín-Martín, A.; Ayllón, J. M.; Delgado López-Cózar, E.; Orduna-Malea, E. (2015). Nature's top 100 Re-revisited. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66 (12), 2714-2714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23570
  • Meho, L.; Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 58 (13), 2105–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
  • Narin, F. (1987). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs. Science and Public Policy, vol. 14(2), 99-106.
  • Narin, F.; Frame, J. D.; Carpenter, M. P. (1983). Highly cited Soviet papers: An exploratory investigation. Social Studies of Science, vol. 13 (2), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631283013002006
  • Oppenheim, C.; Renn, S. P. (1978). Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 29 (5), 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630290504
  • Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (3), 2353–2367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8
  • Orduna-Malea, E.; Ayllón, J. M.; Martín- Martín, A.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, vol. 104 (3), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6
  • Orduna-Malea, E.; Serrano-Cobos, J.; Ontalba- Ruipérez, J. A.; Lloret-Romero, N. (2010). Presencia y visibilidad web de las universidades públicas españolas. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, vol. 33 (2), 246-278. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.2.740
  • Ortega, Jose L. (2014). Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. London: Elsevier.
  • Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international?. Scientometrics, vol. 83 (2), 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0
  • Pitol, S. P.; De Groote, S. L. (2014). Google Scholar versions: Do more versions of an article mean greater impact? Library Hi Tech, vol. 32 (4), 594– 611. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2014-0039
  • Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, vol. 19 (3), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02095346
  • Smith, D. R. (2009). Highly cited articles in environmental and occupational health, 1919– 1960. Archives of environmental & occupational health, vol. 64 (1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338240903286743 PMid:20007115
  • Tijssen, R. J.; Visser, M. S.; Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, vol. 54 (3), 381- 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016082432660
  • Van Noorden, R.; Maher, B.; Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top hundred papers. Nature, vol. 514 (7524), 550- 553. https://doi.org/10.1038/514550a PMid:25355343
  • Van Raan, A. F.; Hartmann, D. (1987). The comparative impact of scientific publications and journals: Methods of measurement and graphical display. Scientometrics, vol. 11(5-6), 325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279352
  • Verstak, A.; Acharya, A. (2013). Identifying multiple versions of documents. U.S. Patent No. 8,589,784. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Winter, J.C.F.; Zadpoor, A.; Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (2), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
  • Yang, K.; Meho, L. (2006). Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 43 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet