arXiv subjects

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar

Publications and source records attributed to Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2021

Spanish philosophers perceptions of pay to publish and open access: books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma

This study examines habits and perceptions related to pay to publish and open access practices in fields that have attracted little research to date: philosophy and ethics. The study is undertaken in the Spanish context, where the culture of publication and the book and journal publishing industry has some specific characteristics with regard to paying to publish, such as not offering open access distribution of books published for a fee. The study draws on data from a survey of 201 researchers, a public debate with 26 researchers, and 14 in-depth interviews. The results reveal some interesting insights on the criteria researchers apply when selecting publishers and journals for their work, the extent of paying to publish (widespread in the case of books and modest for journals) and the debates that arise over the effects it has on manuscript review and unequal access to resources to cover publication fees. Data on the extent of open access and the researchers views on dissemination of publicly funded research are also presented.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spanish philosophical scholarship: an analysis of researchers perceptions

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of the present study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect research behaviour in significant ways, particularly related to publication practices (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Google Scholar: the 'big data' bibliographic tool

The launch of Google Scholar back in 2004 meant a revolution not only in the scientific information search market but also in research evaluation processes. Its dynamism, unparalleled coverage, and uncontrolled indexing make of Google Scholar an unusual product, especially when compared to traditional bibliographic databases. Conceived primarily as a discovery tool for academic information, it presents a number of limitations as a bibliometric tool. The main objective of this chapter is to show how Google Scholar operates and how its core database may be used for bibliometric purposes. To do this, the general features of the search engine (in terms of document typologies, disciplines, and coverage) are analysed. Lastly, several bibliometric tools based on Google Scholar data, both official (Google Scholar Metrics, Google Scholar Citations), and some developed by third parties (H Index Scholar, Publishers Scholar Metrics, Proceedings Scholar Metrics, Journal Scholar Metrics, Scholar Mirrors), as well as software to collect and process data from this source (Publish or Perish, Scholarometer) are introduced, aiming to illustrate the potential bibliometric uses of this source.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Dimensions: re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information

The overarching aim of this work is to provide a detailed description of the free version of Dimensions (new bibliographic database produced by Digital Science and launched in January 2018). To do this, the work is divided into two differentiated blocks. First, its characteristics, operation and features are described, focusing on its main strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, an analysis of its coverage is carried out (comparing it Scopus and Google Scholar) in order to determine whether the bibliometric indicators offered by Dimensions have an order of magnitude significant enough to be used. To this end, an analysis is carried out at three levels: journals (sample of 20 publications in 'Library & Information Science'), documents (276 articles published by the Journal of informetrics between 2013 and 2015) and authors (28 people awarded with the Derek de Solla Price prize). Preliminary results indicate that Dimensions has coverage of the recent literature superior to Scopus although inferior to Google Scholar. With regard to the number of citations received, Dimensions offers slightly lower figures than Scopus. Despite this, the number of citations in Dimensions exhibits a strong correlation with Scopus and somewhat less (although still significant) with Google Scholar. For this reason, it is concluded that Dimensions is an alternative for carrying out citation studies, being able to rival Scopus (greater coverage and free of charge) and with Google Scholar (greater functionalities for the treatment and data export).

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Classic papers: déjà vu, a step further in the bibliometric exploitation of Google Scholar

After giving a brief overview of Eugene Garfield contributions to the issue of identifying and studying the most cited scientific articles, manifested in the creation of his Citation Classics, the main characteristics and features of Google Scholar new service Classic Papers, as well as its main strengths and weaknesses, are addressed. This product currently displays the most cited English-language original research articles by fields and published in 2006

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?

The academic social network site ResearchGate (RG) has its own indicator, RG Score, for its members. The high profile nature of the site means that the RG score may be used for recruitment, promotion and other tasks for which researchers are evaluated. In response, this study investigates whether it is reasonable to employ the RG Score as evidence of scholarly reputation. For this, three different author samples were investigated. An outlier sample includes 104 authors with high values. A Nobel sample comprises 73 Nobel winners from Medicine & Physiology, Chemistry, Physics and Economics (from 1975 to 2015). A longitudinal sample includes weekly data on 4 authors with different RG Scores. The results suggest that high RG Scores are built primarily from activity related to asking and answering questions in the site. In particular, it seems impossible to get a high RG Score solely through publications. Within RG it is possible to distinguish between (passive) academics that interact little in the site and active platform users, who can get high RG Scores through engaging with others inside the site (questions, answers, social networks with influential researchers). Thus, RG Scores should not be mistaken for academic reputation indicators.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2017

Google Scholar and the gray literature: A reply to Bonato's review

Recently, a review concluded that Google Scholar (GS) is not a suitable source of information "for identifying recent conference papers or other gray literature publications". The goal of this letter is to demonstrate that GS can be an effective tool to search and find gray literature, as long as appropriate search strategies are used. To do this, we took as examples the same two case studies used by the original review, describing first how GS processes original's search strategies, then proposing alternative search strategies, and finally generalizing each case study to compose a general search procedure aimed at finding gray literature in Google Scholar for two wide selected case studies: a) all contributions belonging to a congress (the ASCO Annual Meeting); and b) indexed guidelines as well as gray literature within medical institutions (National Institutes of Health) and governmental agencies (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services). The results confirm that original search strategies were undertrained offering misleading results and erroneous conclusions. Google Scholar lacks many of the advanced search features available in other bibliographic databases (such as Pubmed), however, it is one thing to have a friendly search experience, and quite another to find gray literature. We finally conclude that Google Scholar is a powerful tool for searching gray literature, as long as the users are familiar with all the possibilities it offers as a search engine. Poorly formulated searches will undoubtedly return misleading results.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

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

The main objective of this paper is to identify the set of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar and to define their core characteristics (document types, language, free availability, source providers, and number of versions), under the hypothesis that the wide coverage of this search engine may provide a different portrait about this document set respect to that offered by the 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 full-text link. The results obtained show that the average highly-cited document is a journal article or a book (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 especially when detecting duplicates and linking cites properly must be pointed out. The fact of managing with highly cited papers, however, minimizes the effects of these limitations. Given the high presence of books, and to a lesser extend of other document types (such as proceedings or reports), the research concludes that 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 by strictly scientific material (journal articles) but academic in its broad sense

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Back to the past: on the shoulders of an academic search engine giant

A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter

Following in the footsteps of the model of scientific communication, which has recently gone through a metamorphosis (from the Gutenberg galaxy to the Web galaxy), a change in the model and methods of scientific evaluation is also taking place. A set of new scientific tools are now providing a variety of indicators which measure all actions and interactions among scientists in the digital space, making new aspects of scientific communication emerge. In this work we present a method for capturing the structure of an entire scientific community (the Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics community) and the main agents that are part of it (scientists, documents, and sources) through the lens of Google Scholar Citations. Additionally, we compare these author portraits to the ones offered by other profile or social platforms currently used by academics (ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and Twitter), in order to test their degree of use, completeness, reliability, and the validity of the information they provide. A sample of 814 authors (researchers in Bibliometrics with a public profile created in Google Scholar Citations was subsequently searched in the other platforms, collecting the main indicators computed by each of them. The data collection was carried out on September, 2015. The Spearman correlation was applied to these indicators (a total of 31) , and a Principal Component Analysis was carried out in order to reveal the relationships among metrics and platforms as well as the possible existence of metric clusters

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

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 to 165 million documents. However, all the methods show considerable limitations and uncertainties due to inconsistencies in the Google Scholar search functionalities.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Disclosing the network structure of private companies on the web: the case of Spanish IBEX 35 share index

It is common for an international company to have different brands, products or services, information for investors, a corporate blog, affiliates, branches in different countries, etc. If all these contents appear as independent additional web domains (AWD), the company should be represented on the web by all these web domains, since many of these AWDs may acquire remarkable performance that could mask or distort the real web performance of the company, affecting therefore on the understanding of web metrics. The main objective of this study is to determine the amount, type, web impact and topology of the additional web domains in commercial companies in order to get a better understanding on their complete web impact and structure. The set of companies belonging to the Spanish IBEX-35 stock index has been analyzed as testing bench. We proceeded to identify and categorize all AWDs belonging to these companies, and to apply both web impact (web presence and visibility) and network metrics. The results show that AWDs get a high web presence but relatively low web visibility, due to certain opacity or less dissemination of some AWDs, favoring its isolation. This is verified by the low network density values obtained, that occur because AWDs are strongly connected with the corporate domain (although asymmetrically), but very weakly linked each other. Although the processes of AWDs creation and categorization are complex (web policy seems not to be driven by a defined or conscious plan), their influence on the web performance of IBEX 35companies is meaningful. This research measures the AWDs influence on companies under webometric terms for the first time.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Hyperlinks embedded in Twitter as a proxy for total external inlinks to international university websites

This article analyzes Twitter as a potential alternative source of external links for use in webometric analysis because of its capacity to embed hyperlinks in different tweets. Given the limitations on searching Twitter's public API, we decided to use the Topsy search engine as a source for compiling tweets. To this end, we took a global sample of 200 universities and compiled all the tweets with hyperlinks to any of these institutions. Further link data was obtained from alternative sources (MajesticSEO and OpenSiteExplorer) in order to compare the results. Thereafter, various statistical tests were performed to determine the correlation between the indicators and the ability to predict external links from the collected tweets. The results indicate a high volume of tweets, although they are skewed by the presence and performance of specific universities and countries. The data provided by Topsy correlated significantly with all link indicators, particularly with OpenSiteExplorer (r=0.769). Finally, prediction models do not provide optimum results because of high error rates, which fall slightly in nonlinear models applied to specific environments. We conclude that the use of Twitter (via Topsy) as a source of hyperlinks to universities produces promising results due to its high correlation with link indicators, though limited by policies and culture regarding use and presence in social networks.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Proceedings Scholar Metrics: H Index of proceedings on Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Communications according to Google Scholar Metrics (2009-2013)

The objective of this report is to present a list of proceedings (conferences, workshops, symposia, meetings) in the areas of Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Communications covered by Google Scholar Metrics and ranked according to their h-index. Google Scholar Metrics only displays publications that have published at least 100 papers and have received at least one citation in the last five years (2009-2013). The searches were conducted between the 15th and 22nd of December, 2014. A total of 1208 proceedings have been identified

cs.DL↗

arXiv2014

The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access, determining their presence and impact on the Web is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2014

Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead?

The goal of this working paper is to summarize the main empirical evidences provided by the scientific community as regards the comparison between the two main citation based academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, paying special attention to the following issues: coverage, correlations between journal rankings, and usage of these academic search engines. Additionally, selfelaborated data is offered, which are intended to provide current evidence about the popularity of these tools on the Web, by measuring the number of rich files PDF, PPT and DOC in which these tools are mentioned, the amount of external links that both products receive, and the search queries frequency from Google Trends. The poor results obtained by MAS led us to an unexpected and unnoticed discovery: Microsoft Academic Search is outdated since 2013. Therefore, the second part of the working paper aims at advancing some data demonstrating this lack of update. For this purpose we gathered the number of total records indexed by Microsoft Academic Search since 2000. The data shows an abrupt drop in the number of documents indexed from 2,346,228 in 2010 to 8,147 in 2013 and 802 in 2014. This decrease is offered according to 15 thematic areas as well. In view of these problems it seems logical not only that Microsoft Academic Searchwas poorly used to search for articles by academics and students, who mostly use Google or Google Scholar, but virtually ignored by bibliometricians

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

H Index Communication Journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2008-2012)

The aim of this report is to present a ranking of Communication journals covered in Google Scholar Metrics for the period 2008-2012. It corresponds to the H Index update made last year for the period 2007-2011 (Delgado López-Cózar and Repiso 2013). Google Scholar Metrics doesnt currently allow to group and sort all journals belonging to a scientific discipline. In the case of Communication, in the ten listings displayed by GSM we can only locate 46 journals. Therefore, in an attempt to overcome this limitation, we have used the diversity of search procedures allowed by GSM to identify the greatest number of scientific journals of Communication with H Index calculated by this bibliometric tool. The result is a ranking of 354 communication journals sorted by the same H Index, and mean as discriminating value. Journals are also grouped by quartiles.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages

In November 2012 the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) journal rankings were updated, making it possible to compare bibliometric indicators in the 10 languages indexed and their stability with the April 2012 version. The h-index and h 5 median of 1000 journals were analysed, comparing their averages, maximum and minimum values and the correlation coefficient within rankings. The bibliometric figures grew significantly. In just seven and a half months the h index of the journals increased by 15% and the median h-index by 17%. This growth was observed for all the bibliometric indicators analysed and for practically every journal. However, we found significant differences in growth rates depending on the language in which the journal is published. Moreover, the journal rankings seem to be stable between April and November, reinforcing the credibility of the data held by Google Scholar and the reliability of the GSM journal rankings, despite the uncontrolled growth of Google Scholar. Based on the findings of this study we suggest, firstly, that Google should upgrade its rankings at least semiannually and, secondly, that the results should be displayed in each ranking proportionally to the number of journals indexed by language

cs.DL↗