Abstract
To assess the distribution of citations of nursing authors in Spanish in Google Scholar as well as to compare the possible differences between this source and Web of Science and Scopus. This is a descriptive cross-sectional study based on the citation systems offered by Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. Nursing researchers present a verified mean h-index of 7.82 in Academic Google. 74% of researchers belong to the academic field, compared to 26%, who are in health services. Most of them live in Spain (83%), followed by Colombia (12%), Mexico (4%), and Chile (1%). In Spain, the community with the largest number of researchers is Andalusia (41.5%), followed by Valencia (14.6%), and Madrid (7.3%). The Google Scholar citation system requires adjustments in its algorithm for selecting works and citations, and it should also allow some system of confirmation by authors. Nursing can have relatively low h-index values compared to other courses due to short research development.
Highlights
Publishing research results in specialized journals is the main way of disseminating knowledge in all academic areas.Scientific articles are the main instrument for measuring researcher productivity[1]
Scholar citation system requires adjustments in its algorithm for selecting works and citations, and it should allow some system of confirmation by authors
Analysis of scientific production has become an essential element in academic institutions, and increasingly in health institutions, assuming a method of approach to the progress of courses or research groups, and a factor of accessibility to research funding, individual economic incentives[2], or a resource for institutional or corporate visibility; it is true that, in courses with an essential social component, such as nursing, an increase in visibility does not represent an increase in impact factor
Summary
Publishing research results in specialized journals is the main way of disseminating knowledge in all academic areas.Scientific articles are the main instrument for measuring researcher productivity[1]. Analysis of scientific production has become an essential element in academic institutions, and increasingly in health institutions, assuming a method of approach to the progress of courses or research groups, and a factor of accessibility to research funding, individual economic incentives (six-year research)(2), or a resource for institutional or corporate visibility; it is true that, in courses with an essential social component, such as nursing, an increase in visibility does not represent an increase in impact factor. The impact factor, idealized in the 1970s, went through a radically different use from its initial conception, which aimed at selecting journals by academic institutions and documentation services. An assumption that journals with great impact factor would be the ones that would have the greatest relevance in research quickly permeated the academic and research community until it became the bargaining chip in personnel selection processes, competitive financing, or assessment of scientific activity[3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
