Diferencias y evolución del impacto académico en los perfiles de Google Scholar Citations: una aplicación de árboles de decisión

• José Luis Ortega ^[1]
  1. [1] CCHS-CSIC, Madrid, España
• Localización: Revista española de documentación científica, ISSN-e 1988-4621, ISSN 0210-0614, Vol. 38, Nº 4 (octubre-diciembre 2015), 2015
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.3989/redc.2015.4.1225
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Differences and evolution of scholarly impact in Google Scholar Citations profiles: an application of decision trees
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 7 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    El propósito de este artículo es analizar la producción e impacto de más de 3000 perfiles tomados de Google Scholar Citations con el fin de identificar qué segmentos (por género, puestos académicos y disciplinas) son más exitosos en términos de impacto científico. Este análisis se afrontó tanto desde una perspectiva estática como longitudinal. Los árboles de decisión fueron usados para detectar las variables más importantes para agrupar perfiles con un mayor número de citas por artículo e índice h. Resultados muestran que la carrera académica es el factor más importante para conseguir citas y mejorar el índice h. Los investigadores más veteranos son así los que ocupan las primeras posiciones, mientras que los jóvenes investigadores describen curriculums en ciernes. Por el contrario, estos resultados cambian cuando el crecimiento de los perfiles es observado. Así los curriculums más jóvenes son los que experimentan un crecimiento más fuerte, mientras que los más veteranos muestran signos de estabilización y estancamiento. Se concluye que los investigadores con una carrera estable pertenecientes a las ciencias de la vida tienen mejor impacto que los jóvenes investigadores de humanidades y ciencias sociales, a pesar de que estos últimos son los que más rápido crecen en número de citas por documento.

  • English

    The aim of this paper is to analyse the research performance of more than 3,000 profiles from Google Scholar Citations to define which groups (by gender, academic positions and disciplines) bring together more successful profiles. This analysis was faced both from a static and a longitudinal point of view. Decision trees were used to detect the most important variables in order to distinguish winning profiles and to observe which categories bring together more authors with high number of citations and h-indexes. Results show that the career is the most relevant aspect to achieve citations and improve the h-index. Senior researchers are thus ranked in the best positions, while young scholars describe nascent curricula. Otherwise, this distribution changes when growth rates are computed. It is concluded that researchers with a stable career from life sciences have better research impact than young researchers from humanities and social sciences, despite that the fastest growing profiles belong to young scholars.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C. A.; Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian...
  • Aguillo, I. F.; Ganadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. Scientist, vol. 19(14), 10-11.
  • Aksnes, D. W.; Rorstad, K.; Piro, F.; Sivertsen, G. (2011). Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists....
  • Althouse, B. M.; West, J. D.; Bergstrom, C. T.; Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of...
  • Amaral, L. A. N.; Scala, A.; Barthelemy, M.; Stanley, H. E. (2000). Classes of small-world networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of...
  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, vol. 74(2), 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y
  • Chen, X. (2010). Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut. Serials Review, vol. 36(4), 221-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002
  • Cole, J. R.; Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega Hypothesis. Science, vol. 178(October 27), 368-375.
  • D'Angelo, C. A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale...
  • Delgado López-Cózar, E.; Robinson-García, N.; Torres-Salinas, D. (2014), The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate...
  • Ding, W. W.; Murray, F.; Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, vol. 313, 665–667....
  • Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics,...
  • García-Pérez, M. A. (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar:...
  • Garfield, E. (1980). The Number of Biochemical Articles Is Growing, But Why Also the Number of References per Article? Essays of an Information...
  • Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science...
  • Gibrat, R. (1931). Les Inégalités économiques. Paris; Recueil Sirey.
  • Hancock, T.; Lane, J.; Ray, R.; Glennon, D. (1992). The ombudsman: factors influencing academic research productivity: a survey of management...
  • Huang, Z.; Yuan, B. (2012). Mining Google Scholar Citations: An Exploratory Study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7389, 182-189....
  • Jacobs, D.; Ingwersen, P. (2000). A bibliometric study of the publication patterns in the sciences of South African scholars 1981–96. Scientometrics,...
  • Kidd, J. S. (1988). The popularization of science: Some basic measurements. Scientometrics, vol. 14(1), 127-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02020247
  • Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, vol. 43(1), 27-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02458392
  • Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of...
  • Kyvik, S.; Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology &...
  • Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-24, [17 de...
  • Larivière, V.; Ni, C.; Gingras, Y.; Cronin, B.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, vol....
  • Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, vol. 43(6), 889-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094628
  • Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC; National...
  • Maranto, C. L.; Streuly, C. A. (1994). The Determinants of Accounting Professors' Publishing Productivity—The Early Career. Contemporary...
  • Meho, L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google...
  • National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF...
  • Ordu-a-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, vol....
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015). How is a scientific information web service settled? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics,...
  • Ortega, J. L.; Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: keyword maps in Google Scholar Citations. Journal of the...
  • Ortega, J. L.; Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar...
  • Pagel, P. S.; Hudetz, J. A. (2011). An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics....
  • Pauly, D.; Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar...
  • Pe-as, C. S.; Willett, P. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information...
  • Penner, O.; Pan, R. K.; Petersen, A. M.; Kaski, K.; Fortunato, S. (2013). On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific reports,...
  • Pitney, W. A.; Gilson, T. A. (2012). Educational technology: Using Google Scholar Citations to support the impact of scholarly work. Athletic...
  • Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, vol. 493(7431), 159-159. PMid:23302843
  • Radicchi, F.; Fortunato, S.; Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact....
  • Schubert, A.; Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact....
  • Scopus (2014). Subject Area Categories. [17 de septiembre de 2014] http://help.scopus.com/Content/h_subject_categories.htm
  • Small, H. G.; Crane, D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of their structure using citation...
  • Small, H.; Griffith, B. C. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, vol....
  • Smart, J. C.; Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics,...
  • Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching...
  • Solla Price, D. J. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. En: Carnot, E.N.; Pollack, D. (editores).Communication...
  • Ventura, O. N.; Mombrú, A. W. (2006). Use of bibliometric information to assist research policy making. A comparison of publication and citation...
  • Wooding, S.; Wilcox-Jay, K.; Lewison, G.; Grant, J. (2006). Co-author inclusion: A novel recursive algorithmic method for dealing with homonyms...