2016
DOI: 10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: Cómo citar este artículo/Citation: Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Ayllón, J. M. and Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016).A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar . Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 39(4): e149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 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, source… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
7
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…La elección de este indicador se basa en diversos estudios que han puesto de manifiesto que Google Scholar ofrece unos índices de impacto más altos, menor sesgo anglosajón y mayor cobertura de fuentes documentales que Web of Science y Scopus (Degado López-Cózar y Repiso, 2013; Orduña-Malea y Delgado López-Cózar, 2014; Martín-Martín y otros, 2018). Del mismo modo, el estudio concreto de libros y artículos utilizando los indicadores de Google Scholar cuenta con referentes notables en el campo (Gantman, Dabós, 2018;Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea, Ayllón, Delgado López-Cózar, 2016) que serán tenidas en cuenta a la hora de redactar el análisis de los resultados de la presente investigación. Por "casos de éxito" entendimos aquellas tres publicaciones que arrojaban un mayor número de citas en cada perfil individual.…”
Section: Muestra Y Procedimiento De Recogida De Datosunclassified
“…La elección de este indicador se basa en diversos estudios que han puesto de manifiesto que Google Scholar ofrece unos índices de impacto más altos, menor sesgo anglosajón y mayor cobertura de fuentes documentales que Web of Science y Scopus (Degado López-Cózar y Repiso, 2013; Orduña-Malea y Delgado López-Cózar, 2014; Martín-Martín y otros, 2018). Del mismo modo, el estudio concreto de libros y artículos utilizando los indicadores de Google Scholar cuenta con referentes notables en el campo (Gantman, Dabós, 2018;Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea, Ayllón, Delgado López-Cózar, 2016) que serán tenidas en cuenta a la hora de redactar el análisis de los resultados de la presente investigación. Por "casos de éxito" entendimos aquellas tres publicaciones que arrojaban un mayor número de citas en cada perfil individual.…”
Section: Muestra Y Procedimiento De Recogida De Datosunclassified
“…The potential of this idea was however beyond what was initially planned and GS was developed as a separate search engine, whose public presentation almost concurred with the milestone release of another bibliographic database (Scopus), launched by Elsevier just few weeks before (Orduna-Malea et al 2016). Whereas Scopus emerged with a clear intention of breaking the market monopoly of supervised and elitist bibliographic databases represented by the binomial Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports, GS came to represent different objectives and approaches from a complementary and emerging threat market, the academic search engines (Ortega 2014).…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrariwise, GS is a dynamic, open, and uncontrolled database which covers all languages, typologies, and disciplines ). However, some limitations of GS must be recognized as some technical requirements (Orduna-Malea et al 2016) with data quality as well as search limitations to be used accurately as a Bibliometrics tool (Aguillo 2012;Delgado López-Cózar, Orduna-Malea, and Martín-Martín 2019). Otherwise, MA exhibits a higher coverage than WoS and Scopus while following a non-elitist approach, but lower than GS, and with a considerable number of publications with missing or wrong affiliation data (Ranjbar-Sahraei and Van Eck 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of citations in Google Scholar has not been used due to the controversy in this academic search engine (Orduna-Malea et al, 2017). In any case, Google Scholar offers an original and different vision of the most influential academic documents (measured from the perspective of their citation count) (Martín-Martín et al, 2016). Quantity versus quality bibliometric studies show correlations between the number of papers and citations (Hayati, 2009).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%