arXiv subjects

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar

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

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2013

Google Scholar Metrics 2013: nothing new under the sun

Main characteristics of Google Scholar Metrics new version (july 2013) are presented. We outline the novelties and the weaknesses detected after a first analysis. As main conclusion, we remark the lack of new functionalities with respect to last editions, as the only modification is the update of the timeframe (2008-2012). Hence, problems pointed out in our last reviews still remain active. Finally, it seems Google Scholar Metrics will be updated in a yearly basis

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

H Index of scientific Nursing journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

The aim of this report is to present a ranking of Nursing journals covered in Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), a Google product launched in 2012 to assess the impact of scientific journals from citation counts this receive on Google Scholar. Google has chosen to include only those journals that have published at least 100 papers and have at least one citation in a period of five years (2007-2011). Journal rankings are sorted by languages (showing the 100 papers with the greatest impact). This tool allows to sort by subject areas and disciplines, but only in the case of journals in English. In this case, it only shows the 20 journals with the highest h index. This option is not available for journals in the other nine languages present in Google (Chinese, Portuguese, German, Spanish, French, Korean, Japanese, Dutch and Italian). Google Scholar Metrics doesnt currently allow to group and sort all journals belonging to a scientific discipline. In the case of Nursing, in the ten listings displayed by GSM we can only locate 34 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 Nursing with h index calculated by this bibliometric tool. Bibliographic searches were conducted between 10th and 30th May 2013. The result is a ranking of 337 nursing journals sorted by the same h index, and mean as discriminating value. Journals are also grouped by quartiles.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: the popularization of bibliometric asessment

The aim of this paper is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar; Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. It also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of Intensive Care Medicine, by means of data extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that, although average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantive changes in the rankings generated from either data source. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and computation of bibliometric indicators

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?

The launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, and for Scopus powered Scimago Journal Rank. A review of these bibliometric journal evaluation products is performed. We compare their main characteristics from different approaches: coverage, indexing policies, search and visualization, bibliometric indicators, results analysis options, economic cost and differences in their ranking of journals. Despite its shortcomings, Google Scholar Metrics is a helpful tool for authors and editors in identifying core journals. As an increasingly useful tool for ranking scientific journals, it may also challenge established journals products

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting

The launch of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics may provoke a revolution in the research evaluation field as it places within every researchers reach tools that allow bibliometric measuring. In order to alert the research community over how easily one can manipulate the data and bibliometric indicators offered by Google s products we present an experiment in which we manipulate the Google Citations profiles of a research group through the creation of false documents that cite their documents, and consequently, the journals in which they have published modifying their H index. For this purpose we created six documents authored by a faked author and we uploaded them to a researcher s personal website under the University of Granadas domain. The result of the experiment meant an increase of 774 citations in 129 papers (six citations per paper) increasing the authors and journals H index. We analyse the malicious effect this type of practices can cause to Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics. Finally, we conclude with several deliberations over the effects these malpractices may have and the lack of control tools these tools offer

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

H Index of History journals published in Spain according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), which was recently launched in April 2012, features new bibliometric systems for gauging scientific journals by counting the number of citations obtained in Google Scholar. This way, it opens new possibilities for measuring journal impacts in the field of Humanities. The present article intends to evaluate the scope of this tool through analysing GSM searches, from the 5th through 6th of December 2012, of History journals published in Spain. In sum, 69 journals were identified, accounting for only 24% of the History journals published in Spain. The ranges of H index values for this field are so small that the ranking can no longer be said to show a discriminating potential. In the light of this, we would like to propose a change in the way Google Scholar Metrics is designed so that it could also accommodate production and citation patterns in the particular field of History, and, in a broader scope, in the area of Humanities as well.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index

The absence of books and book chapters in the Web of Science Citation Indexes (SCI, SSCI and A&HCI) has always been considered an important flaw but the Thomson Reuters 'Book Citation Index' database was finally available in October of 2010 indexing 29,618 books and 379,082 book chapters. The Book Citation Index opens a new window of opportunities for analyzing these fields from a bibliometric point of view. The main objective of this article is to analyze different impact indicators referred to the scientific publishers included in the Book Citation Index for the Social Sciences and Humanities fields during 2006-2011. This way we construct what we have called the 'Book Publishers Citation Reports'. For this, we present a total of 19 rankings according to the different disciplines in Humanities & Arts and Social Sciences & Law with six indicators for scientific publishers

cs.DL↗