Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: The popularization of bibliometric assessment;Google Scholar e índice h en biomedicina: La popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica

Medicina Intensiva

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 343-354

  Cabezas Clavijo, A ^a   Delgado Lopez Cozar E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Research evaluation Bibliometrics H index Citation analysis Periodicals Databases, Bibliographic Google Scholar Google Scholar Metrics Google Scholar Citations Biomedicine Health sciences; Bibliometrics; Biomedicine; Citation analysis; Databases, Bibliographic; Google Scholar; Google Scholar Citations; Google Scholar Metrics; H index; Health sciences; Periodicals; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIOMEDICINE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; H-INDEX; HEALTH SCIENCE; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; SHORT SURVEY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; INTENSIVE CARE; INTERNET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84878668598     PISSN: 02105691     EISSN: 15786749     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.medin.2013.01.008     Document Type: Short Survey

References (40)

1. Seglen P. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 1997, 314:498-502.
2. Bordons M., Fernandez M., Gómez I. Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics 2002, 53:195-206.
3. Rossner M., van Epps H., Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol 2007, 179:1091-1092.
4. Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science 2008, 322:165.
5. Vanclay J.K. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?. Scientometrics 2012, 92:211-238.
6. Garfield E. The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 1998, 48:413-414.
7. Hirsch J. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102:16569-16572.
8. Alonso S., Cabrerizo F.J., Herrera-Viedma E., Herrera F. h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetr 2009, 3:273-289.
9. Prathap G. Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output. Curr Sci 2006, 91:1439.
10. Csajbók E., Berhidi A., Vasas L., Schubert A. Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics 2007, 73:91-117.
11. Braun T., Glänzel W., Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 2006, 69:169-173.
12. Delgado López-Cózar E, Orduña Malea E, Marcos Cartagena D, Jiménez Contreras E, Ruiz-Pérez R. 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. 2012;5:1-25.
13. Costas R., Bordons M. Una visión crítica del índice h: algunas consideraciones derivadas de su aplicación práctica. Prof Inf 2007, 16:427-432.
14. Costas R., Bordons M. The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetr 2007, 1:193-203.
15. Nicholas D., Williams P., Rowlands I., Jamali H.R. Researchers' e-journal use and information seeking behaviour. J Inf Sci 2010, 36:494-516.
16. Hightower C., Caldwell C. Shifting sands: science researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Issues Sci Tech Librarian 2010, 63. 10.5062/F4V40S4J.
17. Giustini D. How Google is changing medicine. Br Med J 2005, 331:1487-1488.
18. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2007, 95:442-445.
19. Falagas M.E., Pitsouni E.I., Malietzis G.A., Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008, 22:338-342.
20. Anders M.E., Evans D.P. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respir Care 2010, 55:578-583.
21. Nourbakhsh E., Nugent R., Wang h Cevik C., Nugent K. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Info Libr J 2012, 29:214-222.
22. González de Dios J., Flores Canoura A., Jiménez Villa J., Gutiérrez Fuentes J.A. Qué revistas médicas españolas leen y cómo se informan los médicos de atención primaria. Aten Primaria 2011, 43:629-636.
23. Riera M., Aibar E. ¿Favorece la publicación en abierto el impacto de los artículos científicos? Un estudio empírico en el ámbito de la medicina intensiva. Med Intensiva 2013, 37:232-240.
24. Jacsó P. Google Scholar revisited. Online Inf Rev 2008, 32:102-114.
25. Torres-Salinas D., Ruiz-Pérez R., Delgado-López-Cózar E. Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. Prof Inf 2009, 18:501-510.
26. Meho L., Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007, 58:2105-2125.
27. Kulkarni A., Aziz B., Shams I., Busse J.W. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009, 302:1092-1096.
28. Bar-Ilan J. Citations to the Introduction to informetrics indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 2010, 82:495-506.
29. Harzing A-W., van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 2008, 8:61-73.
30. Cabezas-Clavijo á., Torres-Salinas D. Google scholar citations y la emergencia de nuevos actores en la evaluación de la investigación. An ThinkEPI 2012, 6:147-153.
31. Herther N.K. Scholar citations-Google moves into the domain of Web of Science and Scopus. Inf today 2011.
32. Labbé C. Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament. ISSI Newsletter 2010, 6:48-52.
33. Delgado-López-Cózar E, Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D. Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting. EC3 Working Papers. 2012;6.
34. Delgado-López-Cózar E, Cabezas-Clavijo á. Google Scholar Metrics revisado: Ahora empieza a ir en serio. EC3 Working Papers. 2012;8.
35. Delgado-López-Cózar E., Cabezas-Clavijo á. Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. Prof Inf 2012, 21:419-427.
36. Torres-Salinas D., Delgado-López-Cózar E., Jiménez-Contreras E. Rankings of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics 2009, 80:761-774.
37. Fernandez-Mondéjar E., Hugo Ceraso D., Gordo Vidal F., Guerrero López F., Colmenero Ruiz M. Factor de impacto, una herramienta imperfecta pero imprescindible. Med Intensiva 2010, 34:493-494.
38. Delgado López-Cózar E. Herramientas e indicadores bibliométricos para la evaluación de la investigación en Ciencias de la Salud. En: Procedimientos y herramientas en la traslación de la investigación biomédica en cooperación. Universidad Internacional Menéndez y Pelayo. Santander, 26 de julio de 2010.
39. Fernández Mondéjar E., Guerrero López F., Colmenero Ruiz M., Gordo Vidal F. Actividad editorial y otros acontecimientos durante 2011 en Medicina Intensiva. Med Intensiva 2012, 36:1-2.
40. Jiménez-Contreras E., Torres-Salinas D., Ruiz-Pérez R., Delgado-López-Cózar E. Investigación de excelencia en España: ¿actores protagonistas o papeles secundarios?. Med Clin (Barc) 2010, 134:76-81.