Bibliometrics & the bibliometricians in Google Scholar Citations and ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, Twitter
In
keeping with the research line the EC3 Research Group began several
years ago aimed at unravelling the inner depths of Google Scholar and
testing its capabilities as a tool for scientific evaluation, this time
we have turned our efforts to finding new uses for Google Scholar
Citations (GSC). Based on the information available on every GSC public
profile, a procedure has been developed to collect data from the
scientists working on a given field of study, and to aggregate that data
in order to present metrics at various levels: authors, documents,
journals, and book publishers. Thus, GSC data would presumably allow us
to present a picture of the history and scientific communication
patterns of a discipline. In order to explore the feasibility of this
project, we decided to select the field of Bibliometrics,
Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics as our test
subject.
Once
we’ve seen the picture of the discipline that can be observed through
the data available in GSC, we also want to compare it to its
counterparts in other academic web services, like ResearcherID, a
researcher identification system launched by Thomson Reuters, mainly
built upon data from Web of Science (which has been and still is the
go-to source for many researchers in the field of research evaluation),
and other profiling services which have arisen in the wake of the Web
2.0 movement: ResearchGate, an academic social network, and Mendeley, a
social reference manager which also offers profiling features. These are
the most widely known tools worldwide for academic profiling . In
addition, we also include the links to the authors' homepages (the first
tool researchers used to showcase their scientific activities on the
Web), and Twitter, the popular microblogging site, in order to learn how
much presence bibliometricians have in this platform and the kind of
communication activities in which they take part there.
keeping with the research line the EC3 Research Group began several
years ago aimed at unravelling the inner depths of Google Scholar and
testing its capabilities as a tool for scientific evaluation, this time
we have turned our efforts to finding new uses for Google Scholar
Citations (GSC). Based on the information available on every GSC public
profile, a procedure has been developed to collect data from the
scientists working on a given field of study, and to aggregate that data
in order to present metrics at various levels: authors, documents,
journals, and book publishers. Thus, GSC data would presumably allow us
to present a picture of the history and scientific communication
patterns of a discipline. In order to explore the feasibility of this
project, we decided to select the field of Bibliometrics,
Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics as our test
subject.
we’ve seen the picture of the discipline that can be observed through
the data available in GSC, we also want to compare it to its
counterparts in other academic web services, like ResearcherID, a
researcher identification system launched by Thomson Reuters, mainly
built upon data from Web of Science (which has been and still is the
go-to source for many researchers in the field of research evaluation),
and other profiling services which have arisen in the wake of the Web
2.0 movement: ResearchGate, an academic social network, and Mendeley, a
social reference manager which also offers profiling features. These are
the most widely known tools worldwide for academic profiling . In
addition, we also include the links to the authors' homepages (the first
tool researchers used to showcase their scientific activities on the
Web), and Twitter, the popular microblogging site, in order to learn how
much presence bibliometricians have in this platform and the kind of
communication activities in which they take part there.
28
different indicators from 813 authors are displayed. The data is
presented "as is": no filtering or cleaning of the data has been carried
out. From
the ranking of 813 bibliometricians who have made their Google Scholar
Citations profile public, and the top 1057 most cited documents in those
profiles,
two additional rankings have been developed: a journal ranking, and an
publisher ranking according to the number of citations received.
short, our aim is to present a multifaceted and integral perspective of
the discipline, as well as to provide the opportunity for an easy and
intuitive comparison of these products and the reflections of scientific
activity each of them portrays. In addition, we also want to bring
attention to the new platforms that are offering scientific performance
metrics and look into what their meaning could be. With this step, we
enter the altmetrics conversation, but with a different approach: we do
it from the individuals' perspective, and not only from the perspective
of the documents they publish. In short, to notice what these tools really measure while applying it precisely to those who measure
We are currently on an analysis of the data displayed in this product, which will be presented shortly in a working paper.
The product is accessible from:
Google Scholar Digest
No comments:
Post a Comment