H-index and Google scholar: A inclusive scienciometrics symbiosis;El índice-H y google académico: Una simbiosis cienciométrica inclusiva

ACIMED

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 308-322

  Ayçaguer, Luis Carlos Silva ^a  

^a CENTRO NACIONAL DE INFORMACIÓN DE CIENCIAS MÉDICAS   (Cuba)

Author keywords

Google scholar; H index; Hirsch; Impact factor; Scienciometrics; Thomson reuters

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868260362     PISSN: 10249435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Garfield E, Sher IH. New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation. 1963;14(3):195-201.
2. Martyn J, Gilchrist A. An evaluation of British scientific journals (Aslib Occasional Publication, no. 1). London: Aslib, 1968.
3. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972; 178(4060):4719.
4. Archambault É, Larivière V. History of journal impact factor: contingencies and consequences, Scientometrics. 2009;79(3):639-653.
5. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be use for evaluating research. British Medical Journal. 1977;314:497-507.
6. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN. Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Informations journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1995;46(6):461-467.
7. Glänzel W, Moed HF. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics. 2002;53(2):171-193.
8. Aréchaga JM. Las revistas profesionales como claves para el desarrollo de la ciencia, la medicina y la tecnología en España. Panace@. 2005;4(19).
9. Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007;179(6): 10911092.
10. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal. 1997;314(7079):463.
11. Metze K. Bureaucrats, researchers, editors, and the impact factor - a vicious circle that is detrimental to science. Clinics. 2010;65(10):937-940.
12. Hernán MA. Epidemiologists (of all people) should question journal impact factors. Epidemiology. 2008;19:3668.
13. PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game: It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Medicine; 2006:3:291.
14. Brumback RA. Impact Factor: Let's Be Unreasonable! Epidemiology. 2009;20 (6):932-933.
15. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. J Am Med Associat. 2007;295(1):90-93.
16. Arencibia JR, Moya F. La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación desde la perspectiva cienciométrica. Acimed. 2008;17(4) 5. [citado 14 de septiembre de 2012]. Disponible en http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S102494352008000400004&lng=es&nrm=iso.
17. Silva LC. Un indicador obsoleto pero lamentablemente vigente. Enfermería Clínica. 2011;21:59.
18. Gugliotta G. The genius index: One scientists crusade to rewrite reputation rules. Wired Magazine. 2009;17(6):92-95.
19. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102(46):1656972.
20. Vieira ES, Gomes JA. Research impact indicator for institutions. J Informetr. 2010;4(4):581-590.
21. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index, Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):131-152.
22. Rousseau R. New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus. 2006;1(4):235.
23. Jin B. H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus. 2006;1(1):8-9.
24. Kosmulski M. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter. 2006;2(3):4-6.
25. Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics. 2007;72(2):253-280.
26. Jin BH, Liang LM, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2007;52(6):855-863.
27. Anderson TR, Hankin KSH, Killworth PD Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics. 2008; 76(3):577-588.
28. Zhang CT. The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for excess citations. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):5429.
29. García MA. A multidimensional extension to Hirsch's h-index. Scientometrics. 2009;81(3):779-785.
30. Brown RJC. A simple method for excluding self-citation from the h-index: the bindex. Online Information Review. 2009;33(6):1129-1136.
31. Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera E, Herrera F. q2-Index: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Based on the Number and Impact of Papers in the Hirsch Core. J Informetr. 2009;4(1):23-28.
32. Rousseau R, Ye FY. A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2008;59(11):1853-1855.
33. Glanzel W, Schubert A. Hirsch-type characteristics of the tail of distributions. The generalised h-index. J Informetr. 2009;4(1) 118-123.
34. Kosmulski M. Hirsch-type index of international recognition. J Informetr. 2010;4(3):351-7.
35. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy. J Informetr. 2010;4(3):407-414.
36. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera E, Herrera F. hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g- indices. Scientometrics. 2010;82(2):391-400.
37. Namazi MR, Fallahzadeh MK. N-index: A novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields. Ind J Dermatol, Venereol Leprol. 2010;76(3):229-230.
38. Harzing AW, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008;8(1):6173.
39. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):257-271.
40. Jacso P. The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review. 2008;32(2):266-283.
41. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):16973.
42. Delgado E, Cabezas A. Google Scholar Metrics: una herramienta poco fiable para la evaluación de revistas científicas. El profesional de la información. 2012;21(4):419-427.
43. Shrager J, Billman D, Convertino G, Massar JP, Pirolli P. Soccer science and the Bayes community: Exploring the cognitive implications of modern scientific communication. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009;2(1):53-72.
44. Silva LC. La industria farmacéutica y los obstáculos para el flujo oportuno de información: consecuencias para la salud pública. Rev Cubana Sal Públ. 2011;37(Supl. 5):631-43.
45. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358:25260.
46. Baldock C, Ma RMS, Orton CG. The h-index is the best measure of a scientist's research productivity. Medical Physics. 2009;36(4):10435.
47. Glänzel W. On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index, Science Focus. 2006;1(1):10-11.
48. Björk BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 2012;10:73.
49. Arencibia JR. Acimed en Scholar Google: un análisis de citas de la Revista Cubana de los Profesionales de la Información y la Comunicación en la Salud [Internet]. ACIMED. 2008;18(1) 5. [citado 5 de septiembre de 2012]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1024-94352008000700003&lng=es&nrm=iso.
50. Google Scholar Metrics [Internet]. 2012 [citado 20 de agosto de 2012]. Disponible en: http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=es51.
51. Testa J. Playing the system puts self-citation's impact under review. Nature. 2008;455:729.