Source author record

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Digital Libraries

Catalog footprint

What is connected

18works

1topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)

The main objective of this paper is to identify the set of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar and to define their core characteristics (document types, language, free availability, source providers, and number of versions), under the hypothesis that the wide coverage of this search engine may provide a different portrait about this document set respect to that offered by the traditional bibliographic databases. To do this, a query per year was carried out from 1950 to 2013 identifying the top 1,000 documents retrieved from Google Scholar and obtaining a final sample of 64,000 documents, of which 40% provided a free full-text link. The results obtained show that the average highly-cited document is a journal article or a book (62% of the top 1% most cited documents of the sample), written in English (92.5% of all documents) and available online in PDF format (86.0% of all documents). Yet, the existence of errors especially when detecting duplicates and linking cites properly must be pointed out. The fact of managing with highly cited papers, however, minimizes the effects of these limitations. Given the high presence of books, and to a lesser extend of other document types (such as proceedings or reports), the research concludes that Google Scholar data offer an original and different vision of the most influential academic documents (measured from the perspective of their citation count), a set composed not only by strictly scientific material (journal articles) but academic in its broad sense

preprint2016arXiv

Back to the past: on the shoulders of an academic search engine giant

A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar.

preprint2016arXiv

The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter

Following in the footsteps of the model of scientific communication, which has recently gone through a metamorphosis (from the Gutenberg galaxy to the Web galaxy), a change in the model and methods of scientific evaluation is also taking place. A set of new scientific tools are now providing a variety of indicators which measure all actions and interactions among scientists in the digital space, making new aspects of scientific communication emerge. In this work we present a method for capturing the structure of an entire scientific community (the Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics community) and the main agents that are part of it (scientists, documents, and sources) through the lens of Google Scholar Citations. Additionally, we compare these author portraits to the ones offered by other profile or social platforms currently used by academics (ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and Twitter), in order to test their degree of use, completeness, reliability, and the validity of the information they provide. A sample of 814 authors (researchers in Bibliometrics with a public profile created in Google Scholar Citations was subsequently searched in the other platforms, collecting the main indicators computed by each of them. The data collection was carried out on September, 2015. The Spearman correlation was applied to these indicators (a total of 31) , and a Principal Component Analysis was carried out in order to reveal the relationships among metrics and platforms as well as the possible existence of metric clusters

preprint2015arXiv

Disclosing the network structure of private companies on the web: the case of Spanish IBEX 35 share index

It is common for an international company to have different brands, products or services, information for investors, a corporate blog, affiliates, branches in different countries, etc. If all these contents appear as independent additional web domains (AWD), the company should be represented on the web by all these web domains, since many of these AWDs may acquire remarkable performance that could mask or distort the real web performance of the company, affecting therefore on the understanding of web metrics. The main objective of this study is to determine the amount, type, web impact and topology of the additional web domains in commercial companies in order to get a better understanding on their complete web impact and structure. The set of companies belonging to the Spanish IBEX-35 stock index has been analyzed as testing bench. We proceeded to identify and categorize all AWDs belonging to these companies, and to apply both web impact (web presence and visibility) and network metrics. The results show that AWDs get a high web presence but relatively low web visibility, due to certain opacity or less dissemination of some AWDs, favoring its isolation. This is verified by the low network density values obtained, that occur because AWDs are strongly connected with the corporate domain (although asymmetrically), but very weakly linked each other. Although the processes of AWDs creation and categorization are complex (web policy seems not to be driven by a defined or conscious plan), their influence on the web performance of IBEX 35companies is meaningful. This research measures the AWDs influence on companies under webometric terms for the first time.

preprint2015arXiv

Hyperlinks embedded in Twitter as a proxy for total external inlinks to international university websites

This article analyzes Twitter as a potential alternative source of external links for use in webometric analysis because of its capacity to embed hyperlinks in different tweets. Given the limitations on searching Twitter's public API, we decided to use the Topsy search engine as a source for compiling tweets. To this end, we took a global sample of 200 universities and compiled all the tweets with hyperlinks to any of these institutions. Further link data was obtained from alternative sources (MajesticSEO and OpenSiteExplorer) in order to compare the results. Thereafter, various statistical tests were performed to determine the correlation between the indicators and the ability to predict external links from the collected tweets. The results indicate a high volume of tweets, although they are skewed by the presence and performance of specific universities and countries. The data provided by Topsy correlated significantly with all link indicators, particularly with OpenSiteExplorer (r=0.769). Finally, prediction models do not provide optimum results because of high error rates, which fall slightly in nonlinear models applied to specific environments. We conclude that the use of Twitter (via Topsy) as a source of hyperlinks to universities produces promising results due to its high correlation with link indicators, though limited by policies and culture regarding use and presence in social networks.

preprint2015arXiv

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

The emergence of academic search engines (mainly Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search) that aspire to index the entirety of current academic knowledge has revived and increased interest in the size of the academic web. The main objective of this paper is to propose various methods to estimate the current size (number of indexed documents) of Google Scholar (May 2014) and to determine its validity, precision and reliability. To do this, we present, apply and discuss three empirical methods: an external estimate based on empirical studies of Google Scholar coverage, and two internal estimate methods based on direct, empty and absurd queries, respectively. The results, despite providing disparate values, place the estimated size of Google Scholar at around 160 to 165 million documents. However, all the methods show considerable limitations and uncertainties due to inconsistencies in the Google Scholar search functionalities.

preprint2015arXiv

Proceedings Scholar Metrics: H Index of proceedings on Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Communications according to Google Scholar Metrics (2009-2013)

The objective of this report is to present a list of proceedings (conferences, workshops, symposia, meetings) in the areas of Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Communications covered by Google Scholar Metrics and ranked according to their h-index. Google Scholar Metrics only displays publications that have published at least 100 papers and have received at least one citation in the last five years (2009-2013). The searches were conducted between the 15th and 22nd of December, 2014. A total of 1208 proceedings have been identified

preprint2014arXiv

Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead?

The goal of this working paper is to summarize the main empirical evidences provided by the scientific community as regards the comparison between the two main citation based academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, paying special attention to the following issues: coverage, correlations between journal rankings, and usage of these academic search engines. Additionally, selfelaborated data is offered, which are intended to provide current evidence about the popularity of these tools on the Web, by measuring the number of rich files PDF, PPT and DOC in which these tools are mentioned, the amount of external links that both products receive, and the search queries frequency from Google Trends. The poor results obtained by MAS led us to an unexpected and unnoticed discovery: Microsoft Academic Search is outdated since 2013. Therefore, the second part of the working paper aims at advancing some data demonstrating this lack of update. For this purpose we gathered the number of total records indexed by Microsoft Academic Search since 2000. The data shows an abrupt drop in the number of documents indexed from 2,346,228 in 2010 to 8,147 in 2013 and 802 in 2014. This decrease is offered according to 15 thematic areas as well. In view of these problems it seems logical not only that Microsoft Academic Searchwas poorly used to search for articles by academics and students, who mostly use Google or Google Scholar, but virtually ignored by bibliometricians

preprint2014arXiv

The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access, determining their presence and impact on the Web is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

preprint2013arXiv

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

The aim of this paper is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar; Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. It 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, by means of data extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that, although 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 substantive changes in the rankings generated from either data source. 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 computation of bibliometric indicators

preprint2013arXiv

Google Scholar Metrics 2013: nothing new under the sun

Main characteristics of Google Scholar Metrics new version (july 2013) are presented. We outline the novelties and the weaknesses detected after a first analysis. As main conclusion, we remark the lack of new functionalities with respect to last editions, as the only modification is the update of the timeframe (2008-2012). Hence, problems pointed out in our last reviews still remain active. Finally, it seems Google Scholar Metrics will be updated in a yearly basis

preprint2013arXiv

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 10 languages indexed and their stability with the April 2012 version. The h-index and h 5 median of 1000 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 semiannually and, secondly, that the results should be displayed in each ranking proportionally to the number of journals indexed by language

preprint2013arXiv

H Index Communication Journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2008-2012)

The aim of this report is to present a ranking of Communication journals covered in Google Scholar Metrics for the period 2008-2012. It corresponds to the H Index update made last year for the period 2007-2011 (Delgado López-Cózar and Repiso 2013). Google Scholar Metrics doesnt currently allow to group and sort all journals belonging to a scientific discipline. In the case of Communication, in the ten listings displayed by GSM we can only locate 46 journals. Therefore, in an attempt to overcome this limitation, we have used the diversity of search procedures allowed by GSM to identify the greatest number of scientific journals of Communication with H Index calculated by this bibliometric tool. The result is a ranking of 354 communication journals sorted by the same H Index, and mean as discriminating value. Journals are also grouped by quartiles.

preprint2013arXiv

H Index of History journals published in Spain according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), which was recently launched in April 2012, features new bibliometric systems for gauging scientific journals by counting the number of citations obtained in Google Scholar. This way, it opens new possibilities for measuring journal impacts in the field of Humanities. The present article intends to evaluate the scope of this tool through analysing GSM searches, from the 5th through 6th of December 2012, of History journals published in Spain. In sum, 69 journals were identified, accounting for only 24% of the History journals published in Spain. The ranges of H index values for this field are so small that the ranking can no longer be said to show a discriminating potential. In the light of this, we would like to propose a change in the way Google Scholar Metrics is designed so that it could also accommodate production and citation patterns in the particular field of History, and, in a broader scope, in the area of Humanities as well.

preprint2013arXiv

H Index of scientific Nursing journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

The aim of this report is to present a ranking of Nursing journals covered in Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), a Google product launched in 2012 to assess the impact of scientific journals from citation counts this receive on Google Scholar. Google has chosen to include only those journals that have published at least 100 papers and have at least one citation in a period of five years (2007-2011). Journal rankings are sorted by languages (showing the 100 papers with the greatest impact). This tool allows to sort by subject areas and disciplines, but only in the case of journals in English. In this case, it only shows the 20 journals with the highest h index. This option is not available for journals in the other nine languages present in Google (Chinese, Portuguese, German, Spanish, French, Korean, Japanese, Dutch and Italian). Google Scholar Metrics doesnt currently allow to group and sort all journals belonging to a scientific discipline. In the case of Nursing, in the ten listings displayed by GSM we can only locate 34 journals. Therefore, in an attempt to overcome this limitation, we have used the diversity of search procedures allowed by GSM to identify the greatest number of scientific journals of Nursing with h index calculated by this bibliometric tool. Bibliographic searches were conducted between 10th and 30th May 2013. The result is a ranking of 337 nursing journals sorted by the same h index, and mean as discriminating value. Journals are also grouped by quartiles.

preprint2013arXiv

Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting

The launch of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics may provoke a revolution in the research evaluation field as it places within every researchers reach tools that allow bibliometric measuring. In order to alert the research community over how easily one can manipulate the data and bibliometric indicators offered by Google s products we present an experiment in which we manipulate the Google Citations profiles of a research group through the creation of false documents that cite their documents, and consequently, the journals in which they have published modifying their H index. For this purpose we created six documents authored by a faked author and we uploaded them to a researcher s personal website under the University of Granadas domain. The result of the experiment meant an increase of 774 citations in 129 papers (six citations per paper) increasing the authors and journals H index. We analyse the malicious effect this type of practices can cause to Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics. Finally, we conclude with several deliberations over the effects these malpractices may have and the lack of control tools these tools offer

preprint2013arXiv

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

The launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, and for 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

preprint2012arXiv

Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index

The absence of books and book chapters in the Web of Science Citation Indexes (SCI, SSCI and A&HCI) has always been considered an important flaw but the Thomson Reuters 'Book Citation Index' database was finally available in October of 2010 indexing 29,618 books and 379,082 book chapters. The Book Citation Index opens a new window of opportunities for analyzing these fields from a bibliometric point of view. The main objective of this article is to analyze different impact indicators referred to the scientific publishers included in the Book Citation Index for the Social Sciences and Humanities fields during 2006-2011. This way we construct what we have called the 'Book Publishers Citation Reports'. For this, we present a total of 19 rankings according to the different disciplines in Humanities & Arts and Social Sciences & Law with six indicators for scientific publishers

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar

What is connected

Connect this record

See the researcher in context

Building this map preview

18 published item(s)

A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)

Back to the past: on the shoulders of an academic search engine giant

The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter

Disclosing the network structure of private companies on the web: the case of Spanish IBEX 35 share index

Hyperlinks embedded in Twitter as a proxy for total external inlinks to international university websites

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

Proceedings Scholar Metrics: H Index of proceedings on Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Communications according to Google Scholar Metrics (2009-2013)

Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead?

The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

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

Google Scholar Metrics 2013: nothing new under the sun

Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages

H Index Communication Journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2008-2012)

H Index of History journals published in Spain according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

H Index of scientific Nursing journals according to Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011)

Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting

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

Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index