View More View Less
  • 1 The Cybermetrics Lab., CSIC, Albasanz, 26-28, 28037 Madrid, Spain
Restricted access

Abstract

Google Scholar, the academic bibliographic database provided free-of-charge by the search engine giant Google, has been suggested as an alternative or complementary resource to the commercial citation databases like Web of Knowledge (ISI/Thomson) or Scopus (Elsevier). In order to check the usefulness of this database for bibliometric analysis, and especially research evaluation, a novel approach is introduced. Instead of names of authors or institutions, a webometric analysis of academic web domains is performed. The bibliographic records for 225 top level web domains (TLD), 19,240 university and 6,380 research centres institutional web domains have been collected from the Google Scholar database. About 63.8% of the records are hosted in generic domains like .com or .org, confirming that most of the Scholar data come from large commercial or non-profit sources. Considering only institutions with at least one record, one-third of the other items (10.6% from the global) are hosted by the 10,442 universities, while 3,901 research centres amount for an additional 7.9% from the total. The individual analysis show that universities from China, Brazil, Spain, Taiwan or Indonesia are far better ranked than expected. In some cases, large international or national databases, or repositories are responsible for the high numbers found. However, in many others, the local contents, including papers in low impact journals, popular scientific literature, and unpublished reports or teaching supporting materials are clearly overrepresented. Google Scholar lacks the quality control needed for its use as a bibliometric tool; the larger coverage it provides consists in some cases of items not comparable with those provided by other similar databases.

  • Aguillo, I 2009 Measuring the institution's footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech 27 4 540556 .

  • Aguillo, I. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube & J. Leta (eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2011—The 13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 1925), Durban, 4-7 July 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bar-Ilan, J 2007 Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 2 257271 .

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2009). A Closer Look at the Sources of Informetric Research. Cybermetrics, 13: Paper 4. http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v13i1p4.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bar-Ilan, J 2010 Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82 3 495506 .

  • Beel, J. & Gipp, B. (2010). Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar's resilience against it. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13 (3). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0013.305?rgn=main;view=fulltext. doi: .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butler, D 2011 Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature 476 7358 18 .

  • García-Pérez, MA 2010 Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 10 20702085 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harzing, A R van der Wal 2008 Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 1 6173 .

  • Harzing, A R van der Wal 2008 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 60 1 4146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacsó, P 2008 Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review 32 1 102114 .

  • Jacsó, P 2010 Savvy searching pragmatic issues in calculating and comparing the quantity and quality of research through rating and ranking of researchers based on peer reviews and bibliometric indicators from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Online Information Review 34 6 972982 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kousha, K, Thelwall, M 2008 Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics 74 2 273294 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, J, Burnham, JF, Lemley, T, Britton, RM 2010 Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 3 196217 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mayr, P, Walter, A-K 2007 An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review 31 6 814830 .

  • Meho, L, Yang, K 2007 Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58:21052125 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mikki, S 2010 Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics 82 2 321331 .

  • Torres-Salinas, D, Ruiz-Pérez, R, Delgado-López-Cózar, E 2008 Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El profesional de la información 18 5 501510.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White, B 2006 Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious Information Source. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal 50 1 1124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Manuscript submission: http://www.editorialmanager.com/scim/

  • Impact Factor (2019): 2.867
  • Scimago Journal Rank (2019): 1.210
  • SJR Hirsch-Index (2019): 106
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Computer Science Apllications
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Library and Information Sciences
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Impact Factor (2018): 2.770
  • Scimago Journal Rank (2018): 1.113
  • SJR Hirsch-Index (2018): 95
  • SJR Quartile Score (2018): Q1 Library and Information Sciences
  • SJR Quartile Score (2018): Q1 Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

For subscription options, please visit the website of Springer

Scientometrics
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1978
Volumes
per Year
4
Issues
per Year
12
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
CH-6330 Cham, Switzerland Gewerbestrasse 11.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0138-9130 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2861 (Online)