BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

Emilio Delgado López-Cózar contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital Libraries

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89%-94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of Web of Science citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Large coverage fluctuations in Google Scholar: a case study

Unlike other academic bibliographic databases, Google Scholar intentionally operates in a way that does not maintain coverage stability: documents that stop being available to Google Scholar's crawlers are removed from the system. This can also affect Google Scholar's citation graph (citation counts can decrease). Furthermore, because Google Scholar is not transparent about its coverage, the only way to directly observe coverage loss is through regular monitorization of Google Scholar data. Because of this, few studies have empirically documented this phenomenon. This study analyses a large decrease in coverage of documents in the field of Astronomy and Astrophysics that took place in 2019 and its subsequent recovery, using longitudinal data from previous analyses and a new dataset extracted in 2020. Documents from most of the larger publishers in the field disappeared from Google Scholar despite continuing to be available on the Web, which suggests an error on Google Scholar's side. Disappeared documents did not reappear until the following index-wide update, many months after the problem was discovered. The slowness with which Google Scholar is currently able to resolve indexing errors is a clear limitation of the platform both for literature search and bibliometric use cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

An insight into the importance of national university rankings in an international context: The case of the I-UGR Rankings of Spanish universities

The great importance international rankings have achieved in the research policy arena warns against many threats consequence of the flaws and shortcomings these tools present. One of them has to do with the inability to accurately represent national university systems as their original purpose is only to rank world-class universities. Another one has to do with the lack of representativeness of universities' disciplinary profiles as they usually provide a unique table. Although some rankings offer a great coverage and others offer league tables by fields, no international ranking does both. In order to surpass such limitation from a research policy viewpoint, this paper analyzes the possibility of using national rankings in order to complement international rankings. For this, we analyze the Spanish university system as a study case presenting the I-UGR Rankings for Spanish universities by fields and subfields. Then, we compare their results with those obtained by the Shanghai Ranking, the QS Ranking, the Leiden Ranking and the NTU Ranking, as they all have basic common grounds which allow such comparison. We conclude that it is advisable to use national rankings in order to complement international rankings, however we observe that this must be done with certain caution as they differ on the methodology employed as well as on the construction of the fields.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Google Scholar Metrics 2014: a low cost bibliometric tool

We analyse the main features of the third edition of Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), released in June 2014, focusing on its more important changes, strengths, and weaknesses. Additionally, we present some figures that outline the dimensions of this new edition, and we compare them to those of previous editions. Principal among these figures are the number of visualized publications, publication types, languages, and the maximum and minimum h5-index and h5-median values by language, subject area, and subcategory. This new edition is marked by continuity. There is nothing new other than the updating of the time frame (2009-2013) and the removal of some redundant subcategories (from 268 to 261) for English written publications. Google has just updated the data, which means that some of the errors discussed in previous studies still persist. To sum up, GSM is a minimalist information product with few features, closed (it cannot be customized by the user), and simple (navigating it only takes a few clicks). For these reasons, we consider it a 'low cost' bibliometric tool, and propose a list of features it should incorporate in order to stop being labeled as such. Notwithstanding the above, this product presents a stability in its bibliometric indicators that supports its ability to measure and track the impact of scientific publications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the use of Biplot analysis for multivariate bibliometric and scientific indicators

Bibliometric mapping and visualization techniques represent one of the main pillars in the field of scientometrics. Traditionally, the main methodologies employed for representing data are Multi-Dimensional Scaling, Principal Component Analysis or Correspondence Analysis. In this paper we aim at presenting a visualization methodology known as Biplot analysis for representing bibliometric and science and technology indicators. A Biplot is a graphical representation of multivariate data, where the elements of a data matrix are represented according to dots and vectors associated with the rows and columns of the matrix. In this paper we explore the possibilities of applying the Biplot analysis in the research policy area. More specifically we will first describe and introduce the reader to this methodology and secondly, we will analyze its strengths and weaknesses through three different study cases: countries, universities and scientific fields. For this, we use a Biplot analysis known as JK-Biplot. Finally we compare the Biplot representation with other multivariate analysis techniques. We conclude that Biplot analysis could be a useful technique in scientometrics when studying multivariate data and an easy-to-read tool for research decision makers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access