Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields

Scientometrics

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1635-1651

  Jamali, Hamid R ^a   Nabavi, Majid ^b  

^a KHARAZMI UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b Iranian Research Institute for Scientific Information and Documentation   (Iran)

Author keywords

Citation number; Citation version; Full text version; Google Scholar; Open access; Scopus subject categories

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947126976     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics,91(2), 343–351. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8.
2. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research Libraries,65(5), 372–382. doi:10.5860/crl.65.5.372.
3. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. Science-Metrix. Report. Science Matrix Inc. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,74(2), 257–271. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.
5. Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gudnason, G. (2010). OpenAccess to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE,5(6), e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.
6. Brown, C. M. (2001). The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,52(3), 187–200.
7. Charles, L., & Booth, H. A. (2011). An overview of open access in the fields of business and management. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship,16(2), 108–124. doi:10.1080/08963568.2011.554786.
8. Christianson, M. (2007). Ecology articles in Google Scholar: Levels of access to articles in core journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi:10.5062/F4MS3QPD.
9. Cothran, T. (2011). Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study. Library and Information Science Research,33(4), 293–301. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.001.
10. de Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics,98(2), 1547–1565. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2.
11. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology,4(5), e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.
12. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal,22(2), 338–342.
13. Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by discipline. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST. http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol1/Gargouri_Green_285.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
14. Hartman, K., & Mullen, L. (2008). Google Scholar and academic libraries: An update. New Library World,109(5/6), 211–222. doi:10.1108/03074800810873560.
15. Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics,98(1), 565–575. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y.
16. Haya, G., Nygren, E., & Widmark, W. (2007). Metalib and Google Scholar: A user study. Online Information Review,31(3), 365–375. doi:10.1108/14684520710764122.
17. Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C. (2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College and Research Libraries,70(3), 227–234. doi:10.5860/crl.70.3.227.
18. Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review,29(2), 208–221. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066.
19. Jacsó, P. (2008). Google scholar revisited. Online Information Review,32(1), 102–114. doi:10.1108/14684520810866010.
20. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public Web. PLoS ONE,9(5), e93949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093949.
21. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(7), 1055–1065. doi:10.1002/asi.20584.
22. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics,74(2), 273–294. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x.
23. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA,302(10), 1092–1096. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
24. Lercher, A. (2008). A survey of attitudes about digital repositories among faculty at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,34(5), 408–415. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.06.008.
25. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M., Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)? EC3 working papers, 19. http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464. Accessed 25 March 2015.
26. Meho, L. I., & 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(13), 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.
27. Miguel, S., Bongiovani, P. C., Gómez, N. D., & Bueno-de-la-Fuente, G. (2013). Prospect for development of open access in Argentina. Journal of Academic Librarianship,39(1), 1–2. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.002.
28. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy,6(2), 127–141. doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0026.
29. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(12), 1963–1972.
30. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri,55(4), 170–180. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2005.170.
31. Ollé, C., & Borrego, A. (2010). A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Library and Information Science Research,32(3), 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.02.002.
32. Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers. arXiv preprint. https://dspace.muni.cz/jspui/bitstream/ics_muni_cz/1022/1/ZatrochovaEsej.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
33. Pitol, S. P., & De Groote, S. L. (2014). Google Scholar versions: Do more versions of an article mean greater impact? Library Hi Tech,32(4), 594–611. doi:10.1108/LHT-05-2014-0039.
34. Publishers Weekly. (2014). Global publishing leaders 2014: Reed Elsevier. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/63099-global-publishing-leaders-2014-reed-elsevier.html Accessed 03 April 2015.
35. Sanni, S. A., & Zainab, A. N. (2010). Google Scholar as a source for citation and impact analysis for a non-ISI indexed medical journal. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science,15(3), 35–51.
36. Wagner, A. B. (2010). Open access citation advantage: An annotated bibliography. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi:10.5062/F4Q81B0W.
37. Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management,43(4), 1121–1132. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006.
38. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China ranks second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter,13, 7–9.