- -

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

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

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

Show full item record

Martín-Martín, A.; Orduña Malea, E.; Ayllon, JM.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2016). A two-sided academic landscape: snapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013). Revista española de Documentación Científica. 39(4):1-21. doi:10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/82268

Files in this item

Item Metadata

Title: A two-sided academic landscape: snapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)
Author: Martín-Martín, Alberto Orduña Malea, Enrique Ayllon, Juan M. Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio
UPV Unit: Universitat Politècnica de València. Instituto de Diseño para la Fabricación y Producción Automatizada - Institut de Disseny per a la Fabricació i Producció Automatitzada
Issued date:
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 ...[+]
Subjects: Google Scholar , Academic search engines , Highly-cited documents , Academic books , Open access
Copyrigths: Reconocimiento - No comercial (by-nc)
Source:
Revista española de Documentación Científica. (issn: 0210-0614 )
DOI: 10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405
Publisher:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405
Thanks:
Alberto Martin-Martin enjoys a four-year doctoral fellowship (FPU2013/05863) granted by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. Juan Manuel Ayllon enjoys a four-year doctoral fellowship (BES-2012-054980) ...[+]
Type: Artículo

References

Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477-486. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0183-y

Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8

Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170. doi:10.3152/147154403781776645 [+]
Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477-486. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0183-y

Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8

Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170. doi:10.3152/147154403781776645

Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, 59(2), 213-224. doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018529.58334.eb

Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the «Introduction to informetrics» indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495-506. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9

Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Wilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176-190. doi:10.3138/jsp.41.2.176

Björk, B.-C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, 5(6), e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273

Bornmann, L. (2010). Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 441-443. doi: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, 5(1), 228-230. doi: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, 3(1), 27-35. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001

Bornmann, L., de Moya Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 333-335. doi: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, 1(4), 359-375. doi:10.1007/bf02019306

Glanzel, W., & Czerwon, H.-J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980-1989. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 135-141. doi: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, 25(3), 373-380. doi:10.1007/bf02016926

Glanzel, W., Rinia, E. J., & Brocken, M. G. M. (1995). A bibliometric study of highly cited European physics papers in the 80s. Research Evaluation, 5(2), 113-122. doi:10.1093/rev/5.2.113

Harzing, A.-W. (2012). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057-1075. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7

Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565-575. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y

Harzing, A., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61-73. doi:10.3354/esep00076

Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066

Jacso, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309. doi:10.1108/14684520610675816

Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h‐index using Scopus. Online Information Review, 32(4), 524-535. doi:10.1108/14684520810897403

Jacso´, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h‐index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437-452. doi: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, 36(3), 462-478. doi: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, 105(3), 1635-1651. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2

Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e93949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093949

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273-294. doi: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 and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164. doi: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. (2008). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 78(1), 45-67. doi: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 and Technology, 66(12), 2714-2714. doi:10.1002/asi.23570

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. doi: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, 13(2), 307-319. doi: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, 29(5), 225-231. doi:10.1002/asi.4630290504

Orduña-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2013). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2353-2367. doi: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, 104(3), 931-949. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6

Orduña-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, 33(2), 246-278. doi:10.3989/redc.2010.2.740

Ortega, Jose L. (2014). Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. London: Elsevier.

Persson, O. (2009). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics, 83(2), 397-401. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0

P. Pitol, S., & L. De Groote, S. (2014). Google Scholar versions: do more versions of an article mean greater impact? Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 594-611. doi: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, 19(3-4), 185-197. doi:10.1007/bf02095346

Smith, D. R. (2009). Highly Cited Articles in Environmental and Occupational Health, 1919–1960. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 64(sup1), 32-42. doi:10.1080/19338240903286743

Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Scientometrics, 54(3), 381-397. doi:10.1023/a:1016082432660

Van Noorden, R., Maher, B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514(7524), 550-553. doi:10.1038/514550a

Van Raan, A. F. J., & Hartmann, D. (1987). The comparative impact of scientific publications and journals: Methods of measurement and graphical display. Scientometrics, 11(5-6), 325-331. doi:10.1007/bf02279352

De Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547-1565. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2

Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2007). 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. doi:10.1002/meet.14504301185

[-]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record