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

Hace unos anos contabamos en Espana con multiples productos de evaluacion de revistas que daban soporte a investigadores y sobre todo a Aneca y Cneai. Ante tal multiplicidad de productos y con el objetivo de ofrecer una clasificacion global, sintetica que pudiera integrarse en sistemas de informacion de investigacion (CRIS) nacio la Clasificacion integrada de revistas cientificas (CIRC). Dicha clasificacion otorgaba a las revistas una puntuacion (A, B, C, D) y la ultima vez que se actualizo fue en 2012. En esta nota se anuncia desde EC3metrics el lanzamiento de una nueva version de CIRC adaptada al nuevo escenario tras el fin del boom evaluativo e intentando rescatar la esencia original de la primera edicion donde se enfatizaba su integracion en los CRIS. Se indican algunas de la mejoras y cambios que se han realizado en la nueva version.

Clasificación CIRC 2016

Teoría: 1) Introducción básica al índice de citas on-line Google Scholar: descripción general y funcionamiento 2) Los perfiles curriculares en Google Scholar (Mis Citas): nuestra producción científica y su citación online sin esfuerzo 3) Los indicadores bibliométricos de nuestro perfil: número de citas, Índice H e Índice i10 4) Cómo gestionar nuestro perfil de Google Scholar: opciones principales y configuración 5) Cómo mantener nuestro perfil gracias al repositorio de la Universidad de Granada DIGIBUG 6) Otras opciones de Google Scholar: alertas Práctica: Los alumnos crearán su propio perfil en Google Scholar con su producción científica. Se mostrará cómo gestionar los registros y la información del perfil: añadir nuevos artículos, como eliminar duplicados, como unificar las citas de los trabajos, como añadir keywords para aparecer en los directorios de expertos, como añadir coautores... Por último configuraremos alertas para recibir notificaciones cuando nuestros trabajos sean citados o cuando Google Scholar indexe artículos de nuestros temas de investigación

Cómo utilizar Google Scholar para mejorar la visibilidad de nuestra producción científica

Is there a need for a new journal metric? Correlations between JCR Impact Factor metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator - JCI

In 2009, Torres-Salinas & Moed proposed the use of library catalogs to analyze the impact and dissemination of academic books in different ways. Library Catalog Analysis (LCA) can be defined as the application of bibliometric techniques to a set of online library catalogs in order to describe quantitatively a scientific-scholarly field on the basis of published book titles. The aim of the present chapter is to conduct an in-depth analysis of major scientific contributions since the birth of LCA in order to determine the state of the art of this research topic. Hence, our specific objectives are: 1) to discuss the original purposes of library holdings 2) to present correlations between library holdings and altmetrics indicators and interpret their feasible meanings 3) to analyze the principal sources of information 4) to use WorldCat Identities to identify the principal authors and works in the field of Informetrics.

Library Catalog Analysis and Library Holdings Counts: Origins, Methodological Issues and Application to the Field of Informetrics

This paper aims to map and identify topics of interest within the field of Microbiology and identify the main sources driving such attention. We combine data from Web of Science and this http URL, a platform which retrieves mentions to scientific literature from social media and other non-academic communication outlets. We focus on the dissemination of microbial publications in Twitter, news media and policy briefs. A two-mode network of social accounts shows distinctive areas of activity. We identify a cluster of papers mentioned solely by regional news media. A central area of the network is formed by papers discussed by the three outlets. A large portion of the network is driven by Twitter activity. When analyzing top actors contributing to such network, we observe that more than half of the Twitter accounts are bots, mentioning 32% of the documents in our dataset. Within news media outlets, there is a predominance of popular science outlets. With regard to policy briefs, both international and national bodies are represented. Finally, our topic analysis shows that the thematic focus of papers mentioned varies by outlet. While news media cover the wider range of topics, policy briefs are focused on translational medicine, and bacterial outbreaks.

Daniel Torres-Salinas

Papers

Clasificación CIRC 2016

Cómo utilizar Google Scholar para mejorar la visibilidad de nuestra producción científica

Is there a need for a new journal metric? Correlations between JCR Impact Factor metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator - JCI

Library Catalog Analysis and Library Holdings Counts: Origins, Methodological Issues and Application to the Field of Informetrics

Mapping social media attention in Microbiology: Identifying main topics and actors