- -

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: preprint.pdf
Tamaño: 868.4Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión del Autor.
Abrir
[Cerrado]
Nombre: Orduña;Ayllón;Mar ...
Tamaño: 835.4Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor
dc.contributor.author Orduña Malea, Enrique es_ES
dc.contributor.author Ayllon, Juan M. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Martín-Martín, Alberto es_ES
dc.contributor.author Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2017-06-02T11:56:53Z
dc.date.available 2017-06-02T11:56:53Z
dc.date.issued 2015-09
dc.identifier.issn 0138-9130
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/82263
dc.description.abstract The emergence of academic search engines (mainly Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search) that aspire to index the entirety of current academic knowledge has revived and increased interest in the size of the academic web. The main objective of this paper is to propose various methods to estimate the current size (number of indexed documents) of Google Scholar (May 2014) and to determine its validity, precision and reliability. To do this, we present, apply and discuss three empirical methods: an external estimate based on empirical studies of Google Scholar coverage, and two internal estimate methods based on direct, empty and absurd queries, respectively. The results, despite providing disparate values, place the estimated size of Google Scholar at around 160-165 million documents. However, all the methods show considerable limitations and uncertainties due to inconsistencies in the Google Scholar search functionalities. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Springer es_ES
dc.publisher Akadémiai Kiadó es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Scientometrics es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Academic search engines es_ES
dc.subject Google Scholar es_ES
dc.subject Estimation method es_ES
dc.subject Size es_ES
dc.subject Coverage es_ES
dc.subject Webometrics es_ES
dc.subject.classification COMUNICACION AUDIOVISUAL Y PUBLICIDAD es_ES
dc.subject.classification BIBLIOTECONOMIA Y DOCUMENTACION es_ES
dc.title Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Instituto de Diseño para la Fabricación y Producción Automatizada - Institut de Disseny per a la Fabricació i Producció Automatitzada es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Orduña Malea, E.; Ayllon, JM.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 104(3):931-949. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 931 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 949 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 104 es_ES
dc.description.issue 3 es_ES
dc.relation.senia 294434 es_ES
dc.description.references Adamic, I. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2001). The web’s hidden order. Communications of the ACM, 44(9), 55–59. es_ES
dc.description.references Adar, E., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2009). Resonance on the web: Web dynamics and revisitation patterns. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.1381–1390). es_ES
dc.description.references Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351. es_ES
dc.description.references Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabasi, A. L. (1999). Internet—Diameter of the world-wide web. Nature, 401(6749), 130–131. es_ES
dc.description.references Barabasi, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 282(5439), 509–512. es_ES
dc.description.references Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Brewington, B. E., & Cybenko, G. (2000). How dynamic is the Web? Computer Networks, 33(1–6), 257–276. es_ES
dc.description.references Cothran, T. (2011). Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study. Library and Information Science Research, 33(4), 293–301. es_ES
dc.description.references Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2013). Ranking journals: Could Google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned Publishing, 26(2), 101–113. es_ES
dc.description.references De Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565. es_ES
dc.description.references Dobra, A., & Fienberg, S. E. (2004). How large is the world wide web?. In M. Levene & A. Poulovassilis (Eds.), Web dynamics (pp. 23–43). Springer: Berlin. es_ES
dc.description.references Harzing, A.-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575. es_ES
dc.description.references Jacsó, P. (2006). Dubious hit counts and cuckoo’s eggs. Online Information Review, 30(2), 188–193. es_ES
dc.description.references Jacsó, P. (2008). Google scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102–114. es_ES
dc.description.references Jacsó, P. (2011). The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective. Online Information Review, 35(6), 983–997. es_ES
dc.description.references Joint Information Systems Committee (2012). Researchers of tomorrow: The research behaviour of generation Y doctoral students. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2012/Researchers-of-Tomorrow.pdf . Accessed 10 October 2014. es_ES
dc.description.references Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e93949. es_ES
dc.description.references Koehler, W. (1999). An analysis of web page and web site constancy and permanence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 162–180. es_ES
dc.description.references Koehler, W. (2002). Web page change and persistence—A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 162–171. es_ES
dc.description.references Koehler, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued a consideration of document persistence. Information Research, 9(2). http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper174.html . Accessed 10 October 2014. es_ES
dc.description.references Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294. es_ES
dc.description.references Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. (1998). Searching the world wide web. Science, 280(5360), 98–100. es_ES
dc.description.references Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on the web. Nature, 400(6740), 107. es_ES
dc.description.references Levene, M., Fenner, T., Loizou, G., & Wheeldon, R. (2002). A stochastic model for the evolution of the web. Computer Networks, 39(3), 277–287. es_ES
dc.description.references Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)? Granada: EC3 Working Papers, 19. http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464 . Accessed 20 March 2015. es_ES
dc.description.references Meho, L. I., & 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, 58(13), 2105–2125. es_ES
dc.description.references Miri, S. M., Raoofi, A., & Heidari, Z. (2012). Citation analysis of hepatitis monthly by journal citation report (ISI), Google Scholar, and Scopus. Hepatitis Monthly, 12(9), e7441. es_ES
dc.description.references Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: An analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2353–2367. es_ES
dc.description.references Orduna-Malea, E., Martin-Martin, A., Ayllón, Juan M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). The silent fading of an academic search engine: The case of Microsoft Academic Search. Online Information Review, 38(7), 936–953. es_ES
dc.description.references Orduna-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2009). Las universidades públicas españolas en Google Scholar: Presencia y evolución de su publicación académica web. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 493–500. es_ES
dc.description.references Ortega, J. L. (2014). Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook. Netherlands: Elsevier. Chandos Information Professional Series. es_ES
dc.description.references Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Longitudinal study of content and elements in the scientific web environment. Journal of Information Science, 32(4), 344–351. es_ES
dc.description.references Payne, N., & Thelwall, M. (2007). A longitudinal study of academic webs: Growth and stabilisation. Scientometrics, 71(3), 523–539. es_ES
dc.description.references Payne, N., & Thelwall, M. (2008a). Do academic link types change over time? Journal of Documentation, 64(5), 707–720. es_ES
dc.description.references Payne, N., & Thelwall, M. (2008b). Longitudinal trends in academic web links. Journal of Information Science, 34(1), 3–14. es_ES
dc.description.references Uyar, A. (2009). Investigation of the accuracy of search engine hit counts. Journal of Information Science, 35(4), 469–480. es_ES
dc.description.references Van Noorden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. es_ES
dc.description.references Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Search markets and search results: The case of Bing. Library and Information Science Research, 35(4), 318–325. es_ES
dc.description.references Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–15. es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem