Diferencias y evolución del impacto académico en los perfiles de Google Scholar Citations: Una aplicación de árboles de decisión
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.4.1225Palabras clave:
Bibliometría, Google Scholar Citations, buscadores académicos, árboles de decisión, impacto científicoResumen
El propósito de este artículo es analizar la producción e impacto de más de 3000 perfiles tomados de Google Scholar Citations con el fin de identificar qué segmentos (por género, puestos académicos y disciplinas) son más exitosos en términos de impacto científico. Este análisis se afrontó tanto desde una perspectiva estática como longitudinal. Los árboles de decisión fueron usados para detectar las variables más importantes para agrupar perfiles con un mayor número de citas por artículo e índice h. Resultados muestran que la carrera académica es el factor más importante para conseguir citas y mejorar el índice h. Los investigadores más veteranos son así los que ocupan las primeras posiciones, mientras que los jóvenes investigadores describen curriculums en ciernes. Por el contrario, estos resultados cambian cuando el crecimiento de los perfiles es observado. Así los curriculums más jóvenes son los que experimentan un crecimiento más fuerte, mientras que los más veteranos muestran signos de estabilización y estancamiento. Se concluye que los investigadores con una carrera estable pertenecientes a las ciencias de la vida tienen mejor impacto que los jóvenes investigadores de humanidades y ciencias sociales, a pesar de que estos últimos son los que más rápido crecen en número de citas por documento.
Descargas
Citas
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C. A.; Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, vol. 79(3), 517-539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8
Aguillo, I. F.; Ganadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. Scientist, vol. 19(14), 10-11.
Aksnes, D. W.; Rorstad, K.; Piro, F.; Sivertsen, G. (2011). Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 62(4), 628–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21486
Althouse, B. M.; West, J. D.; Bergstrom, C. T.; Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60(1), 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20936
Amaral, L. A. N.; Scala, A.; Barthelemy, M.; Stanley, H. E. (2000). Classes of small-world networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97(21), 11149-11152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.200327197 PMid:11005838 PMCid:PMC17168
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, vol. 74(2), 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y
Chen, X. (2010). Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut. Serials Review, vol. 36(4), 221-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002
Cole, J. R.; Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega Hypothesis. Science, vol. 178(October 27), 368-375.
D'Angelo, C. A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 62(2), 257-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21460
Delgado López-Cózar, E.; Robinson-García, N.; Torres-Salinas, D. (2014), The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 65(3), 446–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
Ding, W. W.; Murray, F.; Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, vol. 313, 665–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1124832 PMid:16888138
Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 8(1), 13-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.003
García-Pérez, M. A. (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 61(10), 2070-2085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21372
Garfield, E. (1980). The Number of Biochemical Articles Is Growing, But Why Also the Number of References per Article? Essays of an Information Scientist, vol. 4, 414-418.
Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London; Sage.
Gibrat, R. (1931). Les Inégalités économiques. Paris; Recueil Sirey.
Hancock, T.; Lane, J.; Ray, R.; Glennon, D. (1992). The ombudsman: factors influencing academic research productivity: a survey of management scientists. Interfaces, vol. 22(5), 26-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.22.5.26
Huang, Z.; Yuan, B. (2012). Mining Google Scholar Citations: An Exploratory Study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7389, 182-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31588-6_24
Jacobs, D.; Ingwersen, P. (2000). A bibliometric study of the publication patterns in the sciences of South African scholars 1981–96. Scientometrics, vol. 47(1), 75-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005617825947
Kidd, J. S. (1988). The popularization of science: Some basic measurements. Scientometrics, vol. 14(1), 127-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02020247
Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, vol. 43(1), 27-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02458392
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 58(7), 1055-1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20584
Kyvik, S.; Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 21(1), 54-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100103
Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-24, [17 de septiembre de 2014] http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf
Larivière, V.; Ni, C.; Gingras, Y.; Cronin, B.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, vol. 504(12 December 2013), 211–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, vol. 43(6), 889-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094628
Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC; National Academies Press.
Maranto, C. L.; Streuly, C. A. (1994). The Determinants of Accounting Professors' Publishing Productivity—The Early Career. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 10(2), 387–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00399.x
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, vol. 58(13), 2105-2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-304. Arlington, VA. [17 de septiembre de 2014] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
Ordu-a-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, vol. 98(3), 2353-2367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8
Ortega, J. L. (2015). How is a scientific information web service settled? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics, vol. 104(1), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
Ortega, J. L.; Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: keyword maps in Google Scholar Citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 63(12), 2370-2377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22761
Ortega, J. L.; Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 7(2), 394-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
Pagel, P. S.; Hudetz, J. A. (2011). An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia, vol. 66(10), 873–878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06860.x PMid:21864299
Pauly, D.; Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 2005, 33-35.
Pe-as, C. S.; Willett, P. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, vol. 32(5), 480-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551506066058
Penner, O.; Pan, R. K.; Petersen, A. M.; Kaski, K.; Fortunato, S. (2013). On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific reports, vol. 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep03052 PMid:24165898 PMCid:PMC3810665
Pitney, W. A.; Gilson, T. A. (2012). Educational technology: Using Google Scholar Citations to support the impact of scholarly work. Athletic Training Education Journal, vol. 7(1), 38-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5608/070138 http://dx.doi.org/10.5608/070138
Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, vol. 493(7431), 159-159. PMid:23302843
Radicchi, F.; Fortunato, S.; Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105(45), 17268-17272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806977105 PMid:18978030 PMCid:PMC2582263
Schubert, A.; Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, vol. 9(5-6), 281-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02017249
Scopus (2014). Subject Area Categories. [17 de septiembre de 2014] http://help.scopus.com/Content/h_subject_categories.htm
Small, H. G.; Crane, D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, vol. 1(5-6), 445-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02016661
Small, H.; Griffith, B. C. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, vol. 4, 17-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400102
Smart, J. C.; Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, vol. 10(5), 297-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02016776
Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 3(1), 5-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356215980030101
Solla Price, D. J. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. En: Carnot, E.N.; Pollack, D. (editores).Communication among scientists and engineers, Lexington, D.C; Heath Lexington Books and Company, pp. 3-22.
Ventura, O. N.; Mombrú, A. W. (2006). Use of bibliometric information to assist research policy making. A comparison of publication and citation profiles of Full and Associate Professors at a School of Chemistry in Uruguay. Scientometrics, vol. 69(2), 287-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0154-5
Wooding, S.; Wilcox-Jay, K.; Lewison, G.; Grant, J. (2006). Co-author inclusion: A novel recursive algorithmic method for dealing with homonyms in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, vol. 66(1), 11-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0002-7
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2015 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
© CSIC. Los originales publicados en las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son propiedad del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional ” (CC BY 4.0). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
No se autoriza el depósito en repositorios, páginas web personales o similares de cualquier otra versión distinta a la publicada por el editor.
