Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | Martín-Martín, Alberto | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Orduña Malea, Enrique | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Ayllon, Juan M. | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio | es_ES |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-06-02T12:23:01Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-06-02T12:23:01Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0210-0614 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10251/82268 | |
dc.description.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. | es_ES |
dc.description.sponsorship | 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) granted by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Enrique Orduna-Malea holds a postdoctoral fellowship (PAID-10-14), from the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain). | en_EN |
dc.language | Inglés | es_ES |
dc.publisher | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) | es_ES |
dc.relation.ispartof | Revista española de Documentación Científica | es_ES |
dc.rights | Reconocimiento - No comercial (by-nc) | es_ES |
dc.subject | Google Scholar | es_ES |
dc.subject | Academic search engines | es_ES |
dc.subject | Highly-cited documents | es_ES |
dc.subject | Academic books | es_ES |
dc.subject | Open access | es_ES |
dc.subject.classification | COMUNICACION AUDIOVISUAL Y PUBLICIDAD | es_ES |
dc.subject.classification | BIBLIOTECONOMIA Y DOCUMENTACION | es_ES |
dc.title | A two-sided academic landscape: snapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013) | es_ES |
dc.type | Artículo | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 | |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MECD//FPU2013%2F05863/ES/FPU2013%2F05863/ | es_ES |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO//BES-2012-054980/ES/BES-2012-054980/ | es_ES |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/UPV//PAID-10-14/ | es_ES |
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 | 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. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 | es_ES |
dc.description.accrualMethod | S | es_ES |
dc.relation.publisherversion | http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpinicio | 1 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpfin | 21 | es_ES |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es_ES |
dc.description.volume | 39 | es_ES |
dc.description.issue | 4 | es_ES |
dc.relation.senia | 328129 | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Universitat Politècnica de València | es_ES |
dc.description.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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170. doi:10.3152/147154403781776645 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Garfield, E. (1977). Introducing Citation Classics: the human side of scientific papers. Current Contents, vol. 3 (1), 1-2. | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375. doi:10.1007/bf02019306 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Jacso, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309. doi:10.1108/14684520610675816 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Maltrás Barba, B. (2003). Los indicadores bibliométricos: fundamentos y aplicación al análisis de la ciencia. Gijón: Trea. | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | 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. doi:10.1002/asi.20677 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Narin, F. (1987). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs. Science and Public Policy, vol. 14(2), 99-106. | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Ortega, Jose L. (2014). Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. London: Elsevier. | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Persson, O. (2009). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics, 83(2), 397-401. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Scientometrics, 54(3), 381-397. doi:10.1023/a:1016082432660 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Van Noorden, R., Maher, B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514(7524), 550-553. doi:10.1038/514550a | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | 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 | es_ES |