Revista española de Documentación Científica, Vol 39, No 4 (2016)

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

Alberto Martín-Martín, Enrique Orduna-Malea, Juan M. Ayllón, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405

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 errores especialmente en la detección de documentos duplicados y en la correcta vinculación de citas. En todo caso, la muestra manejada (documentos altamente citados) minimiza los efectos de dichas limitaciones. Dada la alta presencia de libros (manuales) y, en menor medida, de otras tipologías documentales (como congresos o informes), se concluye que Google Scholar ofrece una visión original y diferente del conjunto de documentos académicos más influyentes (medidos desde la perspectiva de la contabilización de citas), conformado no sólo por material estrictamente científico (artículos en revistas), sino académico en sentido amplio.

Palabras clave


Google Scholar, motores de búsqueda académicos, documentos altamente citados, libros académicos, acceso abierto

Texto completo:


HTML PDF XML

Referencias


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

Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, vol. 91 (2), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8

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

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

Archambault, E.; Amyot, D.; Deschamps, P.; Nicol, A.; Rebout, L.; Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. Science-Metrix. Report. Science Matrix Inc. In : http:// www. science-metrix. com/ pdf/ SM_ EC_ OA_ Availability_ 2004-2011. pdf

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

Beel, J.; Gipp, B.; Wilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO): Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar and Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 41 (2), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.41.2.176

Björk, B. C.; Welling, P.; Laakso, M.; Majlender, P.; Hedlund, T.; Gudnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, vol. 5(6), e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 PMid:20585653 PMCid:PMC2890572

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

Bornmann, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.; Leydesdorff, L. (2011). The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 6(2), 333-335. https://doi.org/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, vol. 1(4), 359- 375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306

Garfield, E. (2005). The Agony and the Ecstasy— The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, 16 September. In: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/ jifchicago2005.pdf

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

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

Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, vol. 94 (3), 1057-1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7

Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (1), 565-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y

Harzing, A.W.; Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 8 (1), 61- 73. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00076

Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online information review, vol. 29 (2), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520510598066

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

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

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

Khabsa, M.; Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One, vol. 9(5), e93949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 PMid:24817403 PMCid:PMC4015892

Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, vol. 74 (2), 273–294. https://doi.org/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, vol. 62 (11), 2147-2164. https://doi.org/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. (2009). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, vol. 78 (1), 45-67. https://doi.org/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 & Technology, vol. 66 (12), 2714-2714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23570

Meho, L.; 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, vol. 58 (13), 2105–2125. https://doi.org/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, vol. 13 (2), 307-319. https://doi.org/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, vol. 29 (5), 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630290504

Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (3), 2353–2367. https://doi.org/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, vol. 104 (3), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6

Orduna-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, vol. 33 (2), 246-278. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.2.740

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

Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international?. Scientometrics, vol. 83 (2), 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0

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

Smith, D. R. (2009). Highly cited articles in environmental and occupational health, 1919– 1960. Archives of environmental & occupational health, vol. 64 (1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338240903286743 PMid:20007115

Tijssen, R. J.; Visser, M. S.; Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, vol. 54 (3), 381- 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016082432660

Van Noorden, R.; Maher, B.; Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top hundred papers. Nature, vol. 514 (7524), 550- 553. https://doi.org/10.1038/514550a PMid:25355343

Van Raan, A. F.; Hartmann, D. (1987). The comparative impact of scientific publications and journals: Methods of measurement and graphical display. Scientometrics, vol. 11(5-6), 325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279352

Verstak, A.; Acharya, A. (2013). Identifying multiple versions of documents. U.S. Patent No. 8,589,784. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Winter, J.C.F.; Zadpoor, A.; Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, vol. 98 (2), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2

Yang, K.; Meho, L. (2006). Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 43 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185




Copyright (c) 2016 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 3.0 España (CC-by).


Contacte con la revista redc.cchs@cchs.csic.es

Soporte técnico soporte.tecnico.revistas@csic.es