本文对国际科学计量学杂志《Ｓｃｉｅｎｔｏｍｅｔｒｉｃｓ》１９７９－１９９１年的研究论文内容、栏目、作者及国别和编委及国别作了计量分析，揭示出科学计量学研究的重点、活动的中心及发展趋势，说明了学科带头人在发展科学计量学这门新兴学科中的作用。

国际刊物《Scientometrics》文献计量研究

This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases. Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons. Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI, annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons.

/pdf/google-scholar-scopus-and-the-web-of-science-a-longitudinal-273ulih93q.pdf

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Google Scholar (GS), a commonly used web-based academic search engine, catalogues between 2 and 100 million records of both academic and grey literature (articles not formally published by commercial academic publishers). Google Scholar collates results from across the internet and is free to use. As a result it has received considerable attention as a method for searching for literature, particularly in searches for grey literature, as required by systematic reviews. The reliance on GS as a standalone resource has been greatly debated, however, and its efficacy in grey literature searching has not yet been investigated. Using systematic review case studies from environmental science, we investigated the utility of GS in systematic reviews and in searches for grey literature. Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80. We also found that, when searched for specifically, the majority of literature identified using Web of Science was also found using GS. However, our findings showed moderate/poor overlap in results when similar search strings were used in Web of Science and GS (10–67%), and that GS missed some important literature in five of six case studies. Furthermore, a general GS search failed to find any grey literature from a case study that involved manual searching of organisations’ websites. If used in systematic reviews for grey literature, we recommend that searches of article titles focus on the first 200 to 300 results. We conclude that whilst Google Scholar can find much grey literature and specific, known studies, it should not be used alone for systematic review searches. Rather, it forms a powerful addition to other traditional search methods. In addition, we advocate the use of tools to transparently document and catalogue GS search results to maintain high levels of transparency and the ability to be updated, critical to systematic reviews.

/pdf/the-role-of-google-scholar-in-evidence-reviews-and-its-3iwt5w97zq.pdf

The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

Manual en el que se presentan los aspectos que hay que tener en cuenta para escribir y publicar articulos cientificos con calidad suficiente para que sean aceptados en revistas de impacto elevado. Los principales temas tratados son: generalidades sobre publicaciones tecnicas y cientificas, indices de calidad de revistas, metadatos, aspectos formales, secciones de los articulos, redaccion, ilustraciones, proceso de la evaluacion por pares, etica, publicacion en acceso abierto, marketing profesional y promocion del articulo.

Informe APEI sobre Publicación en revistas científicas

World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to which extent these different rankings measure the same phenomenon and what it is that they are measuring. For this, we selected a total of seven world-university rankings and performed a principal component analysis. After ensuring that despite their methodological differences, they all come together to a single component, we hypothesized that bibliometric indicators could explain what is being measured. Our analyses show that ranking scores from whichever of the seven league tables under study can be explained by the number of publications and citations received by the institution. We conclude by discussing policy implications and opportunities on how a nuanced and responsible use of rankings can help decision making at the institutional level

Mining university rankings: Publication output and citation impact as their basis

In 2006 Hwang’s fraudulent papers published in Science on stem cell research re-opened the debate on scientific misconduct. Taking this as a starting point, some reflections are put forward on the dimension of fraud in science. The singularity of Hwang’s case, due to its scientific, social and media impact, is examined as a consequence of the persuasion mechanisms systematised in the so-called Routes of Scholarly Lying. Furthermore, the reasons for publishing fraudulent research, the inefficiency of peer review for detecting it, and the various mechanisms for managing and eradicating it, are presented.

/pdf/el-fraude-en-la-ciencia-reflexiones-a-partir-del-caso-hwang-1mb98b2040.pdf

El fraude en la ciencia : reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang

In the past years, the movement of data sharing has been enjoying great popularity. Within this context, Thomson Reuters launched at the end of 2012 a new product inside the Web of Knowledge family: the Data Citation Index. The aim of this tool is to enable discovery and access, from a single place, to data from a variety of data repositories from different subject areas and from around the world. In this short note we present some preliminary results from the analysis of the Data Citation Index. Specifically, we address the following issues: discipline coverage, data types present in the database, and repositories that were included at the time of the study

/pdf/an-introduction-to-the-coverage-of-the-data-citation-index-4q9ui8dzhv.pdf

An introduction to the coverage of the Data Citation Index (Thomson-Reuters): disciplines, document types and repositories

A university may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige in a scientific field (e.g., physics) when a particular bibliometric research performance indicator exceeds a threshold value. But a university has multidimensional prestige in a field of study only if it is influential with respect to a number of dimensions. The multidimensional prestige of influential fields at a given university takes into account that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the influence of a university in a particular field of study. After having identified the multidimensionally influential fields of study at a university their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields at this university, which satisfies numerous properties. Here we use this summary measure of multidimensional prestige to assess the comparative performance of Spanish Universities during the period 2006–2010.

/pdf/ranking-of-research-output-of-universities-on-the-basis-of-fzm5y6zdi2.pdf

Ranking of research output of universities on the basis of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields: Spanish universities as a case of study

Daniel Torres-Salinas

Papers

Informe APEI sobre Publicación en revistas científicas

Mining university rankings: Publication output and citation impact as their basis

El fraude en la ciencia : reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang

An introduction to the coverage of the Data Citation Index (Thomson-Reuters): disciplines, document types and repositories

Ranking of research output of universities on the basis of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields: Spanish universities as a case of study