Un panorama académico de dos caras: retrato de los documentos altamente citados en Google Scholar (1950-2013)

Abstract

Cómo citar este artículo/Citation: Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Ayllón, J. M. and Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016).A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar . Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 39(4): e149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 Abstract:The main objective of this paper is to identify and define the core characteristics of the set of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (document types, language, free availability, sources, and number of versions), on the hypothesis that the wide coverage of this search engine may provide a different portrait of these documents with respect to that offered by traditional bibliographic databases. To do this, a query per year was carried out from 1950 to 2013 identifying the top 1,000 documents retrieved from Google Scholar and obtaining a final sample of 64,000 documents, of which 40% provided a free link to full-text. The results obtained show that the average highly-cited document is a journal or book article (62% of the top 1% most cited documents of the sample), written in English (92.5% of all documents) and available online in PDF format (86.0% of all documents). Yet, the existence of errors should be noted, especially when detecting duplicates and linking citations properly. Nonetheless, the fact that the study focused on highly cited papers minimizes the effects of these limitations. Given the high presence of books and, to a lesser extent, of other document types (such as proceedings or reports), the present research concludes that the Google Scholar data offer an original and different vision of the most influential academic documents (measured from the perspective of their citation count), a set composed not only of strictly scientific material (journal articles) but also of academic material in its broadest sense.Keywords: Google Scholar; academic search engines; highly-cited documents; academic books; open access. Un panorama académico de dos caras: retrato de los documentos altamente citados en Google Scholar (1950-2013)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 error...

Comparación del impacto de libros y artículos de investigadores españoles de comunicación a través de Google Scholar en 2019

“…La elección de este indicador se basa en diversos estudios que han puesto de manifiesto que Google Scholar ofrece unos índices de impacto más altos, menor sesgo anglosajón y mayor cobertura de fuentes documentales que Web of Science y Scopus (Degado López-Cózar y Repiso, 2013; Orduña-Malea y Delgado López-Cózar, 2014; Martín-Martín y otros, 2018). Del mismo modo, el estudio concreto de libros y artículos utilizando los indicadores de Google Scholar cuenta con referentes notables en el campo (Gantman, Dabós, 2018;Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea, Ayllón, Delgado López-Cózar, 2016) que serán tenidas en cuenta a la hora de redactar el análisis de los resultados de la presente investigación. Por "casos de éxito" entendimos aquellas tres publicaciones que arrojaban un mayor número de citas en cada perfil individual.…”

Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: a retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

“…The potential of this idea was however beyond what was initially planned and GS was developed as a separate search engine, whose public presentation almost concurred with the milestone release of another bibliographic database (Scopus), launched by Elsevier just few weeks before (Orduna-Malea et al 2016). Whereas Scopus emerged with a clear intention of breaking the market monopoly of supervised and elitist bibliographic databases represented by the binomial Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports, GS came to represent different objectives and approaches from a complementary and emerging threat market, the academic search engines (Ortega 2014).…”

“…Contrariwise, GS is a dynamic, open, and uncontrolled database which covers all languages, typologies, and disciplines ). However, some limitations of GS must be recognized as some technical requirements (Orduna-Malea et al 2016) with data quality as well as search limitations to be used accurately as a Bibliometrics tool (Aguillo 2012;Delgado López-Cózar, Orduna-Malea, and Martín-Martín 2019). Otherwise, MA exhibits a higher coverage than WoS and Scopus while following a non-elitist approach, but lower than GS, and with a considerable number of publications with missing or wrong affiliation data (Ranjbar-Sahraei and Van Eck 2018).…”

Analisis de la producción científica basado en las tendencias en temas de investigación. Un estudio de caso sobre inteligencia artificial

“…The number of citations in Google Scholar has not been used due to the controversy in this academic search engine (Orduna-Malea et al, 2017). In any case, Google Scholar offers an original and different vision of the most influential academic documents (measured from the perspective of their citation count) (Martín-Martín et al, 2016). Quantity versus quality bibliometric studies show correlations between the number of papers and citations (Hayati, 2009).…”