Use of Research Organizations Registry (ROR) identifiers in author academic profilesthe case of Google Scholar Profiles

  1. Orduña-Malea, Enrique 1
  2. Bautista-Puig, Núria 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Hipertext.net: Revista Académica sobre Documentación Digital y Comunicación Interactiva

ISSN: 1695-5498

Año de publicación: 2022

Título del ejemplar: Interfaces: networks, ecology and evolution

Número: 25

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.31009/HIPERTEXT.NET.2022.I25.11 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Hipertext.net: Revista Académica sobre Documentación Digital y Comunicación Interactiva

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Els identificadors persistents de les organitzacions de recerca permeten reduir les ambigüitats de les afiliacions, la realització d’anàlisis institucionals precisos i afavoreixen el disseny de bases de dades online acadèmiques modernes adequades per al descobriment i l’avaluació de la recerca. No obstant això, pocs estudis han intentat quantificar el seu grau d’utilització. L’objectiu d’aquest treball és precisament determinar l’ús dels identificadors del registre d’organitzacions de recerca (ROR) als perfils acadèmics d’autor, concretament als perfils de Google Scholar (GSP). Per fer-ho, es van recollir i analitzar tots els perfils de Google Scholar que inclouen el terme ROR en qualsevol dels camps descriptius públics. Els resultats evidencien un baix ús del ROR ID (1.033 perfils), per part de poques institucions (per exemple, la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Colòmbia i l’Escola Superior Politècnica del Litoral de l’Equador tenen el 55,7% de tots els perfils), d’autors de baix impacte basat en citacions (el 45,1% dels perfils tenen menys de 100 citacions cadascun), pertanyent principalment a les àrees de Ciències Socials (26,3%), Enginyeria (25,3%) i Ciències Naturals (22,2%). Tot i que Google Scholar no facilita la inclusió d’identificadors, sembla que les institucions de recerca líders del món encara no recomanen als seus investigadors que incloguin aquests identificadors als seus perfils

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduña-Malea, E. & Martín-Martín, A. (2019). Google Scholar as a Data Source for Research Assessment. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 95-127). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4
  • Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N. & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
  • Demeranville, T., Brown, J., Fenner, M., Cruse, P., Haak, L., Paglione, L., Bilder, G., Lin, J. & Pentz (Eds). (2016). Organisation Identifiers - Minimum viable product requirements. https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3479141.v1
  • Doğan, G., Şencan, İ. & Tonta, Y. (2016). Does Dirty Data Affect Google Scholar Citations? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098
  • Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: Is it too little, too late? Online Information Review, 36(1), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211209581
  • Kim, H. J. & Grofman, B. (2020). Who Creates a Google Scholar Profile? PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 515-520. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000189
  • Lammey, R. (2020). Solutions for identification problems: A look at the Research Organization Registry. Science Editing, 7(1), 65-69. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.192
  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1251-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4
  • Meadows, A. (4 December 2019). Are You Ready to ROR? An Inside Look at this New Organization Identifier Registry. The Scholarly kitchen [blog]. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/12/04/are-you-ready-to-ror-an-inside-look-at-this-new-organization-identifier-registry
  • Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L. & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites—Where and Who Are They? PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709
  • Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). The lost academic home: Institutional affiliation links in Google Scholar Citations. Online Information Review, 41(6), 762-781. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2016-0302
  • Orduña-Malea, E., & Bautista-Puig, N. (2022). Measuring web connectivity between research organizations through ROR identifiers. 26th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2022), Granada, Spain. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6948453
  • Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015a). Diferencias y evolución del impacto académico en los perfiles de Google Scholar Citations: Una aplicación de árboles de decisión. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 38(4), e102. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.4.1225
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015b). How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics, 104(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015c). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2370-2377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22761
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles: Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations: Comparative Analysis of Author Profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149-1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23036
  • Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2018). The Google Scholar h-index: Useful but burdensome metric. Scientometrics, 117(1), 631-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2859-7
  • Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: Expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3667-3672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03831-9
  • Thoma, B. & Chan, T. M. (2019). Using Google Scholar to track the scholarly output of research groups. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(3), 201-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0515-4
  • Tsou, A., Bowman, T. D., Sugimoto, T., Lariviere, V. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Self-presentation in scholarly profiles: Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites. First Monday, 21(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i4.6381
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet