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

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.

[1]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[2]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.

[3]  András Schubert,et al.  Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data , 2007, Scientometrics.

[4]  Kai Simons,et al.  The Misused Impact Factor , 2008, Science.

[5]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A Hirsch-type index for journals , 2006, Scientometrics.

[6]  Michael E. Anders,et al.  Comparison of , 2010 .

[7]  F. Gordo Vidal,et al.  Actividad editorial y otros acontecimientos durante 2011 en Medicina Intensiva , 2012 .

[8]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis , 2008 .

[9]  Mary Shultz,et al.  Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[10]  Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar,et al.  Factor de impacto, una herramienta imperfecta pero imprescindible , 2010 .

[11]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Google Scholar Metrics revisado: Ahora empieza a ir en serio , 2012 .

[12]  Rafael Ruiz-Pérez,et al.  Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. , 2009 .

[13]  Dean Giustini,et al.  How Google is changing medicine , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  Javier González de Dios,et al.  Qué revistas médicas españolas leen y cómo se informan los médicos de atención primaria , 2011 .

[15]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance , 2002, Scientometrics.

[16]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals , 2012 .

[17]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Researchers’ e-journal use and information seeking behaviour , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[19]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[20]  Rebecca Nugent,et al.  Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2012, Health information and libraries journal.

[21]  María Bordons,et al.  Una visión crítica del índice h: algunas consideraciones derivadas de su aplicación práctica , 2007 .

[22]  M. Riera,et al.  ¿Favorece la publicación en abierto el impacto de los artículos científicos? Un estudio empírico en el ámbito de la medicina intensiva , 2013 .

[23]  Cyril Labbé.  Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament , 2010 .

[24]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[25]  Rafael Ruiz-Pérez,et al.  JOURNAL SCHOLAR: una alternativa internacional, gratuita y de libre acceso para medir el impacto de las revistas de Arte, Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales , 2012 .

[26]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[27]  Christy Caldwell,et al.  Shifting Sands: Science Researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with Implications for Library Collections Budgets. , 2010 .

[28]  Daniel Torres-Salinas,et al.  Google scholar citations y la emergencia de nuevos actores en la evaluación de la investigación , 2012 .

[29]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2010, Scientometrics.

[30]  Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras,et al.  Investigación de excelencia en España: ¿protagonistas o papeles secundarios? , 2010 .

[31]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  The Impact Factor and Using It Correctly , 2002 .

[32]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Google Scholar revisited , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[33]  Nicolás Robinson-García,et al.  Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting , 2012, ArXiv.

[34]  Emma Hill,et al.  Show me the data. , 1998 .

[35]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? , 2011, Scientometrics.

[36]  N. Mohaghegh,et al.  WHY THE IMPACT FACTOR OF JOURNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH , 2005 .