Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank?

Learned Publishing

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 101-114

  Delgado López Cózar, Emilio ^a   Cabezas Clavijo, Álvaro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875322820     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20130206     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Harzing, A.-W. and Van der Wal, R. 2008. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8: 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esep00076
2. Jacsó, P. 2008. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32: 102-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010
3. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2009. Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científi ca. El Profesional de la información, 18: 501-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03
4. Sanni, S. and Zainab, A. 2011. Evaluating the infl uence of a medical journal using Google Scholar. Learned Publishing, 24: 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110210
5. Jacso, P. 2005. As we may search-comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89: 1537-1547.
6. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., and Wang, L. 2006. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
7. Meho, L. and 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, 58: 2105-2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
8. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., and Pappas, G. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar: strengths and weak-nesses. Faseb Journal, 22: 338-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
9. Bar-Ilan, J. 2008. Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74: 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y
10. Bar-Ilan, J. 2010. Citations to the 'Introduction to informetrics' indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82: 495-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9
11. Kulkarni, A., Aziz, B., Shams, I., and Busse, J.W. 2009. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302: 1092-1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307
12. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., and Daniel, H.-D. 2009. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, S. Journal of Informetrics, 3: 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001
13. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., and Rezaie, S. 2011. Assessing the citation impact of books: the role of Google Books, Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62: 2147-2164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21608
14. De Groote, S.L. and Raszewski, R. 2012. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60: 391-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007
15. Costas, R. and Bordons, M. 2007. The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1: 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001
16. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2013. Google Scholar y el índice h en Biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica. Medicina Intensiva, in press.
17. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientifi c journals. El Profesional de la información, 21: 419-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.jul.15
18. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Robinson-García, N. 2012. Repositories in Google Scholar Metrics or what is this document type doing in a place as such? Cybermetrics, 16: paper 4. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v16i1p4.html
19. Jacsó, P. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications: the software and content features of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review, 36: 604-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521211254121
20. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics updated: now it begins to get serious. EC3 Working Papers, 8. http://hdl.handle. net/10481/22439
21. Garfield, E. 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295: 90-93.
22. González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., and Moya-Anegón, F. 2010. A new approach to the metric of journals' scientifi c prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4: 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
23. Scopus. 2013. What Does Scopus Cover? http://www.info. sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/facts (accessed 25 January 2013)
24. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2012. Las revistas españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas en Google Scholar Metrics, ¿están todas las que son? EC3 Working Papers, 2. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16892
25. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2012. ¿Es posible usar Google Scholar para evaluar a las revistas científi cas nacionales en los ámbitos de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas? El caso de las revistas españolas. EC3 Working Papers, 3. http://hdl.handle. net/10760/16888
26. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Repiso-Caballero, R. 2012. Índice H de las revistas de Comunicación según Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011). http://hdl.handle. net/10481/22483
27. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduña Malea, E., Marcos Cartagena, D., Jiménez Contreras, E., and Ruiz-Pérez, R. 2012. JOURNAL SCHOLAR: Una alternativa internacional, gratuita y de libre acceso para medir el impacto de las revistas de Arte, Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. EC3 Working Papers, 5. http://hdl.handle. net/10481/20375
28. Google Scholar Metrics. 2012. Coverage of Publications. http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics. html#coverage (accessed 1 February 2013)
29. Ruiz-Pérez, R., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2006. Criterios del Institute for Scientifi c Information para la selección de revistas científi cas. Su aplicación a las revistas españolas: metodología e indicadores. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6: 401-424.
30. Scopus. 2013. Content Selection http://www.info.sciverse. com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/content-selection (accessed 25 January 2013)
31. Scopus. 2012. Advice to Journal Editors and Publishers: Securing Accession for a Journal to Scopus http://fi les.sciverse. com/documents/pdf/Advice_to_journal_editors_ and_publishers_v2.pdf (accessed 1 February 2013)
32. Aguillo, I.F. 2012. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91: 343-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8
33. Wouters, P. and Costas, R. Users, Narcissism and Control-Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st century. Utrecht, SURF Foundation, 2012.
34. Vaughan, L. and Shaw, D. 2007. A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74: 317-330. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11192-008-0220-2
35. Labbé, C. 2010. Ike Antkare-one of the great stars in the scientifi c fi rmament. ISSI Newsletter, 6: 48-52.
36. Delgado-López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., and Torres-Salinas, D. 2012. Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting. EC3 Working Papers, 6. http://arxiv.org/ abs/1212.0638
37. Pudovkin, A.I. and Garfield, E. 2002. Algorithmic procedure for fi nding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53: 1113-1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10153
38. Beall, J. 2012. Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013. http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2013-lists2.pdf (accessed 7 February 2013)
39. Journal Metrics Values. 2013. http://www.journalmetrics. com/values.php (accessed 1 February 2013)
40. BOE (Offi cial State Gazette-Spain). 2012. Resolución de 17 de septiembre de 2012, de la Secretaría General Técnica, por la que se publican las cuentas anuales de la Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología del ejercicio 2011.
41. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., and Chute, R. 2009. A principal component analysis of 39 scientifi c impact measures. PloS One, 4: e6022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
42. Leydesdorff, L. 2009. How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60: 1327-1336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21024
43. Elkins, M.R., Maher, C.G., Herbert, R.D., Moseley, A.M., and Sherrington, C. 2010. Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 85: 81-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0262-0
44. Jacsó, P. 2010. Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal and Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases. Online Information Review, 34: 642-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521011073034
45. Torres-Salinas, D. and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2010. Introducción y estudio comparativo de los nuevos indicadores de citación sobre revistas científi cas en Journal Citation Reports y Scopus. El profesional de la Información, 19: 201-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2010.mar.12
46. Sicilia, M.-A., Sánchez-Alonso, S., and García-Barriocanal, E. 2011. Comparing impact factors from two different citation databases: the case of computer science. Journal of Informetrics, 5: 698-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.007
47. Torres-Salinas, D., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2009. Rankings of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics, 80: 761-774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2113-9
48. Vanclay, J. 2008. Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2: 326-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.002
49. Harzing, A. and Wal, R. van der. 2009. A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60: 40-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20953