Google Scholar Metrics Research Articles

Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age

Innovations in scholarly publishing have led to new possibilities for academic journals (e.g., open access), and provided scholars with a range of indicators that can be used to evaluate their characteristics and their impact. This study identifies and evaluates the journal characteristics reported in five databases: Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory (Ulrichs), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), Google Scholar Metrics (GS), and Cabell’s Periodical Directory (Cabells). It describes the 13 indicators (variables) that are available through these databases—scholarly impact, subject category, age, total articles, distribution medium, open access, peer review, acceptance rate, pricing, language, country, status, and issue frequency—and highlights the similarities and differences in the ways these indicators are defined and reported. The study also addresses the ways in which this kind of information can be used to better understand particular journals as well as the scholarly publishing system.

Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources

This guide presents nine key questions that can help researchers make good use of citation-based journal rankings (metrics) in the natural and social sciences. The nine questions address the characteristics that distinguish one metric from another: the source documents, the citation-counting window, the document types counted, the cited-document window, the impact of highly cited documents, the treatment of self-citations, the distinction between size-dependent and size-independent metrics, the use of normalization to account for disciplinary differences in impact, and the use of weighting to account for the impact or centrality of each citing journal. Next, the guide reviews 19 standard citation metrics, including the h index, g index, impact factor, source normalized impact per paper, eigenfactor, article influence score, and SCImago journal rank. Three underlying data sources (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) are described, along with six major data download sites: Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, CWTS Journal Indicators, SCImago, Scopus Journal Metrics, Cabell's International, and Google Scholar Metrics. The paper summarizes the main criticisms of citation metrics and concludes with suggestions for their further development, dissemination, and use.

Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors".

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals.MethodsWe performed a web-based data abstraction from the “Instructions for Authors” of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another’s ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22.ResultsOf the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their “Instructions for Authors,” while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform.DiscussionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting.ConclusionsReporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine.Trial registration UMIN000022486 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

President's Page

EDITOR'S SUMMARYASIS&T president Nadia Caidi announces incoming board members for the positions of president‐elect, treasurer and directors‐at‐large and recognizes the volunteer service of dedicated members in a variety of activities. The search for a director to succeed Dick Hill and interviews with applicants for the position of communications officer continue, while the steadfast team at ASIS&T headquarters maintains operations and member services. The Association's first Meet the Authors webinar, exploring search engine manipulation, was stimulating, and doctoral students' videos on their research will soon be viewable online. Google Scholar metrics for June 2016 reaffirm the leading position of ASIS&T publications for the information science community. The upcoming ASIS&T Annual Meeting in Copenhagen and other fall 2016 meetings in Europe offer valuable opportunities for learning, networking and career growth.

Information Sources and Indicators for the Assessment of Journal Reputation and Impact

ABSTRACTThis guide describes several information sources that can be used to assist faculty interested in quantitative and qualitative assessments of journal reputation and scholarly impact: Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, Google Scholar Metrics, Elsevier Journal Metrics, Excellence in Research for Australia, Cabell’s International, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Beall’s List. It also introduces the indicators most often used to represent citation impact: impact factor, article influence score, eigenfactor, h5-index, source normalized impact per paper, impact per publication, and SCImago journal rank. Methods of assessing the influence of individual articles are also presented, along with strategies for the identification of predatory or low-quality journals.

Learning Analytics – A Growing Field and Community Engagement

This editorial discusses events that marked the period since the publication of the previous issue – the 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2015), Learning Analytics Summer Institutes (LASIs 2015), and Learning Analytics Policy Briefing in the European Parliament. This period saw releases of two important publications for system-wide implementation of learning analytics in higher education published by Jisc and the Australian Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching. An important recognition of the maturation of the field of learning analytics is the recent publication of the 2015 Google Scholar Metrics identifying the LAK proceedings as the only conference proceedings among the 20 most cited publication venues in educational technology. Building bridges for enhancing impact is another important activity for the field maturation through developing linkages of learning analytics with educational data mining, user modeling, the learning sciences, technology enhanced learning, cyber-learning, and learning at scale. This editorial also introduces a special section published in this issue dedicated to the exploration of connections between self-regulated learning and learning analytics, introduces two regular research papers featured in this issue and describes several special sections that will be published in future issues of the journal.

Indicators of national focus of the research published by Public Health journals edited in Brazil.

This report presents a set of bibliometric indicators and statistics which explain the high level of production of articles on research in public and collective health in Brazil which are published in the main nationally edited journals in the field. The predominance of publications in the Portuguese language by Brazilian authors results in a lower impact in terms of citations received as measured by the bibliometric indexes Scimago/Scopus and JCR/WoS. These bibliometric indexes are used to measure the production and performance of research and journals. Nevertheless, the performance of these same journals stands out in SciELO, and is competitive internationally in the broader context of Google Scholar Metrics. The challenge faced by journals in Brazil is developing and applying editorial policies for the valuation of research with a national focus, and its internationalization.

Current biomedical scientific impact (2013) of institutions, academic journals and researchers in the Republic of Macedonia.

To analyse current ranking (2013) of institutions, journals and researchers in the Republic of Macedonia. the country rankings of R. Macedonia were analyzed with SCImago Country & Journal Rank (SJR) for subject area Medicine in the years 1996-2013, and ordered by H-index. SCImago Institutions Rankings for 2013 was used for the scientific impact of biomedical institutions in the Republic of Macedonia. Journal metrics from Elsevier for the Macedonian scholarly journals for the period 2009-2013 were performed. Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), the Impact per Publication (IPP), and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) were analysed. Macedonian scholarly biomedical journals included in Google Scholar metrics (2013, 2012) were analysed with h5-index and h5-median (June 2014). A semantic analysis of the PubMed database was performed with GoPubMed on November 2, 2014 in order to identify published papers from the field of biomedical sciences affiliated with the country of Macedonia. Harzing's Publish or Perish software was used for author impact analysis and the calculation of the Hirsh-index based on Google Scholar query. The rank of subject area Medicine of R. Macedonia according to the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) is 110th in the world and 17th in Eastern Europe. Of 20 universities in Macedonia, only Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, and the University St Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, are listed in the SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) for 2013. A very small number of Macedonian scholarly journals is included in Web of Sciences (2), PubMed (1), PubMed Central (1), SCOPUS (6), SCImago (6), and Google Scholar metrics (6). The rank of Hirsh index (h-index) was different from the rank of number of abstracts indexed in PubMed for the top 20 authors from R. Macedonia. The current biomedical scientific impact (2013) of institutions, academic journals and researchers in R. Macedonia is very low. There is an urgent need for organized measures to improve the quality and output of institutions, scholarly journals, and researchers in R. Macedonia in order to achieve higher international standards.

Perfiles de Comunicación en Google Scholar Metrics, índice h y nuevas estrategias de difusión de la investigación

Since 2012, Google Scholar Metrics allows researchers to create an online citations profile where their scientific and academic publications are assessed with personalised bibliometric indicators such as the ih index, the i10 index and the ih5 index, which refer to the relation between a researchers’ publications and their importance according to peers. This article presents the results of a research study about the use of the Google Scholar profile, the citation metrics, the h indicators, and the traditional citations counting tools among Communication researchers in Spain. This study also explores the new research dissemination strategies that have derived from the use of the h index in comparison to the impact factor

Editorial 30(3)

<p>In this editorial we take the opportunity provided by the release of the 2014 Google Scholar Journal Metrics to explain the various journal metrics, how they are calculated and how AJET rates against other Educational Technology journals. Journal metrics broadly refer to the various measures of quality or impact of a journal, largely based on the number of articles published in the journal itself and citations in other journals to articles published in the journal. As well as being used to rank the journals themselves, metrics are often used as a proxy measure of the quality of articles in a particular journal, and thus individual researchers’ publication lists. The three most well known journal metric sources are the Thomson Routers Journal Citation Reports (previously known as the ISI Journal Citation Reports), Google Scholar Metrics, and Scopus Journal Analyser. Each of these sources includes a number of metrics or indices that use specific algorithms drawing on data within their own databases of journals, articles and citations. This editorial explains the key metrics used by these sources.</p>

Measuring the Quality of Contributions of Saudi Authors to LIS Journals Using Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM)

This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals.

Enabling Leadership: Unleashing Creativity, Adaptation, and Learning in an Organization

Metrics! Dashboards! Value-based purchasing! Nurse leaders are under mounting pressure to produce value in a complex, competitive, and rapidly changing environment. 1 Wolosin R Ayala L Fulton BR Nursing care, patient satisfaction, and value-based purchasing. JONA. 2012; 42: 321-325 Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar Producing excellent outcomes requires leveraging the creativity and leadership potential at every level of the complex system. 2 Institute of Medicine The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011 Google Scholar The challenge is to create an environment that engages the leadership capacity of every individual in the system to optimize performance while continuing to meet the many administrative, regulatory, and financial requirements. Meeting this paradoxical challenge requires a different approach to leadership: one that is designed to unleash the creative, adaptive, and achievement potential throughout the system. 3 Tregunno D Zimmerman B A Mobius band: paradoxes of accountability for nurse managers. in: Lindberg C Nash S Lindberg C On the Edge: Nursing in the Age of Complexity. Plexus Press, Bordentown, NJ2008: 159-184 Google Scholar Metrics! Dashboards! Value-based purchasing! Nurse leaders are under mounting pressure to produce value in a complex, competitive, and rapidly changing environment. 1 Wolosin R Ayala L Fulton BR Nursing care, patient satisfaction, and value-based purchasing. JONA. 2012; 42: 321-325 Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar Producing excellent outcomes requires leveraging the creativity and leadership potential at every level of the complex system. 2 Institute of Medicine The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011 Google Scholar The challenge is to create an environment that engages the leadership capacity of every individual in the system to optimize performance while continuing to meet the many administrative, regulatory, and financial requirements. Meeting this paradoxical challenge requires a different approach to leadership: one that is designed to unleash the creative, adaptive, and achievement potential throughout the system. 3 Tregunno D Zimmerman B A Mobius band: paradoxes of accountability for nurse managers. in: Lindberg C Nash S Lindberg C On the Edge: Nursing in the Age of Complexity. Plexus Press, Bordentown, NJ2008: 159-184 Google Scholar

Google, cambia el paradigma de la métrica científica.

The spanish journals that appear in the second quartile of Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) are not listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). There are serious differences and one big coincidence between these two databases: they both belong to very large multinational information companies, Google and Thomson Reuters, whose sources of income are very different. While the access to Google Scholar Metrics is currently free, Thomson Reuters charges people high fees to access its databases. In fact, Spain paid almost 1.5 million euro in 2008, more than 3 millions in 2011, and a total of 25 million from 2005 to 2008. This article examines the differences between these two databases, the negative effects of the dominance of Thomson Reuters as the leading source of information to evaluate journals on the Spanish journals, and the potential benefits that the public recognition of Google Scholar Metrics could bring to the academia. Once again, the public service is against the interests of the market and the Spanish scientific lobbying which bets on the market and blocks out national initiatives.

The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators

Google Scholar has been well received by the research community. Its promises of free, universal, and easy access to scientific literature coupled with the perception that it covers the social sciences and the humanities better than other traditional multidisciplinary databases have contributed to the quick expansion of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: 2 new bibliometric products that offer citation data at the individual level and at journal level. In this article, we show the results of an experiment undertaken to analyze Google Scholar's capacity to detect citation‐counting manipulation. For this, we uploaded 6 documents to an institutional web domain that were authored by a fictitious researcher and referenced all the publications of the members of the EC3 research group at the University of Granada. The detection by Google Scholar of these papers caused an outburst in the number of citations included in the Google Scholar Citations profiles of the authors. We discuss the effects of such an outburst and how it could affect the future development of such products, at both the individual level and the journal level, especially if Google Scholar persists with its lack of transparency.

Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages

In November 2012 the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) journal rankings were updated, making it possible to compare bibliometric indicators in the ten languages indexed--and their stability--with the April 2012 version. The h-index and h-5 median of 1,000 journals were analysed, comparing their averages, maximum and minimum values and the correlation coefficient within rankings. The bibliometric figures grew significantly. In just seven and a half months the h-index of the journals increased by 15 % and the median h-index by 17 %. This growth was observed for all the bibliometric indicators analysed and for practically every journal. However, we found significant differences in growth rates depending on the language in which the journal is published. Moreover, the journal rankings seem to be stable between April and November, reinforcing the credibility of the data held by Google Scholar and the reliability of the GSM journal rankings, despite the uncontrolled growth of Google Scholar. Based on the findings of this study we suggest, firstly, that Google should upgrade its rankings at least semi-annually and, secondly, that the results should be displayed in each ranking proportionally to the number of journals indexed by language.

The need for end-user customization of the journal-sets of the subject categories in the <i>SCImago Journal Ranking database</i> for more appropriate league lists. A case study for the Library & Information Science field

The open access SCImago Journal & Country Rank ( SJR ) service -built from data in the subscription-based Elsevier ’s Scopus database- offers bibliographic information and bibliometric indicators for nearly 20,000 journals and other serial publications for 1996-2011. Journals are assigned to 300+ pre-defined subject categories and 26 broad subject areas to produce league lists. The set of 134 journals assigned to the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) subject category and a sample set of 50 other LIS journals, scattered across several other categories, were analyzed in the latest edition (SJR - 2011). Recommendations are made on how SJR could be enhanced by its developers to include simple customization options in the interface to facilitate a more efficient look-up and more valid comparison of the standing of journals and other serials and to reflect the prevailing preferences at the institutions where the rank positions in journal league lists are used to inform career advancement and funding decisions. It is argued that extending the current three-year citation window to five years would be more appropriate for all disciplines, and would also make SJR comparable to metricsbased journal league lists produced from the open access Microsoft Academic Search (MAS ), Google Scholar Metrics for Publications (GSMP ), and Eigenfactor.org (EF) data and the subscription-based Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which pioneered the idea of a metrics-based journal league list.

El impacto de las revistas de comunicación: comparando Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science y Scopus

Google Scholar Metrics' launch in April 2012, a new bibliometric tool for the evaluation of scientific journals by means of citation counting, has ended with the duopoly exerted by the Web of Science and Scopus databases. This paper aims at comparing the coverage of these three databases and the similarity their journal rankings may have. We selected a sample of journals from the field of Communication Studies indexed in the three databases. Data was recollected on 1720 November, 2012. 277 journals were identified to which we calculated their hindex and ranked them according to such indicator. Then, we analyzed the correlation between the rankings generated. Google Scholar Metrics dobles the coverage of the other databases, reducing the bias toward English language both; web of Science and Scopus have. Google Scholar Metrics shows higher hindex values (an average 47% higher than Scopus and 40% higher than Web of Science), allowing to better rank journals. We conclude that Google Scholar Metrics is a tool capable of identifying the main journals in Communication Studies offering results as reliable and valid as the ones Web of Science and Scopus show. La aparición de Google Scholar Metrics en abril de 2012 como nuevo sistema de evaluación bibliométrica de revistas científicas a partir del recuento de las citas bibliográficas que éstas han recibido en Google Scholar rompe el duopolio ejercido hasta el momento por las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus. El objetivo de este trabajo es comparar la cobertura que poseen estas tres bases de datos y la similitud que puedan presentar los rankings elaborados a partir de ellas. Se ha elegido como muestra las revistas de comunicación indizadas en las tres bases de datos. Las búsquedas bibliográficas se efectuaron entre el 17 y el 20 de noviembre de 2012. Se calcula el índice h de las 277 revistas identificadas y se averigua la correlación existente entre los rankings generados. Google Scholar Metrics duplica la cobertura, reduce el sesgo anglosajón que poseen Web of Science y Scopus. Google Scholar Metrics proporciona índices h más elevados (un promedio de un 47% superior a Scopus y un 40% a Web of Science) con lo que permite discriminar mejor las posiciones de las revistas en el ranking. En conclusión, Google Scholar Metrics es una herramienta capaz de identificar las principales revistas de comunicación ofreciendo resultados tan solventes, fiables y válidos como los generados por Web of Science y Scopus.

Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: The popularization of bibliometric assessment

The aim of this study is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar, such as Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index, which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. The study also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine, and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of intensive care medicine, based on data extracted from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that although the average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science, and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantial changes in the rankings generated from one data source or the other. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and for the computation of bibliometric indicators.

Ranking journals: could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?

ABSTRACTThe launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports, and for the Scopus‐powered Scimago Journal Rank. A review of these bibliometric journal evaluation products is performed. We compare their main characteristics from different approaches: coverage, indexing policies, search and visualization, bibliometric indicators, results analysis options, economic cost, and differences in their ranking of journals. Despite its shortcomings, Google Scholar Metrics is a helpful tool for authors and editors in identifying core journals. As an increasingly useful tool for ranking scientific journals, it may also challenge established journals products.

Google Scholar e índice h en biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica

The aim of this study is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar, such as Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index, which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. The study also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine, and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of intensive care medicine, based on data extracted from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that although the average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science, and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantial changes in the rankings generated from one data source or the other. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and for the computation of bibliometric indicators.