Scholarly Communication and Scientific Search Engines: Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/13/01Comun2Keywords:
Scholar Communication, Scientific search engines, Research, Scientific Production, Cites, BibliometryAbstract
To enable scientific development, research must be communicated. Scholarly communication has evolved over the years, but not the way how re-searchers have to justify their scientific output. This scoping review aims to de-scribe the situation of the main scientific search engines Web of Science and Sco-pus, which are based on their own journal collections, and others based on citation web searches such as Google Scholar, Dimensions, and The Lens. A bibli-ographic search was carried out in the Lista, WoS, and Scopus databases for scien-tific articles dealing with scholarly communication and focusing on the resources analyzed. The search was limited to the years 2016-2021 and to the languages Spanish, English, Catalan, French, Italian and Portuguese. Bibliographic databases such as WoS and Scopus continue giving a biased picture of the influence of re-search, and web-based tools, such as GS and Dimensions, are resources that still have many shortcomings for not allowing the replication of searches or down-loading of data, e.g. by GS. It is therefore recommended to use as much infor-mation as possible to have a more complete picture of the care received.
Metrics
References
ABADAL, E. (Ed.). (2017). Revistas científicas. Situación actual y retos de futuro. Ernest Abadal (ed.). Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.
ADIE, E. & ROE, W. (2013). Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130103
AGUILLO, I. (2009). Measuring the institution’s footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540-556. https://doi.org/10.1108/073788309
AGUILLO, I.F. (2015). La Declaración de San Francisco (DORA) y la mala bibliometría. Anuario ThinkEPI, 9(0), 183. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2015.43
ALMIND, T.C. & INGWERSEN, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the world wide web: methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007205
ANDERSON, R. (2020). Scholarly Communication. In Scholarly Communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190639440.001.0001
BAIGET, T. & De MOYA ANEGÓN, F. (2020). Manual SCImago de revistas científicas.
BAR-ILAN, J.; HAUSTEIN, S.; PETERS, I.; PRIEM, J.; SHEMA, H. & TERLIESNER, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web.
BAR-ILAN, J. & PERITZ, B.C. (2001). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the internet: An analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3), 371-392.
BORKU UYSAL, B.; ISLAMOGLU, M.S.; KOC, S.; KARADAG, M. & DOKUR, M. (2021). Most notable 100 articles of COVID-19: an Altmetric study based on bibliometric analysis. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 190(4), 1335-1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02460-8
BORREGO, Á. (2020). Measuring the impact of digital heritage collections using google scholar. Information Technology and Libraries, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.6017/ITAL.V39I2.12053
BURGHARDT, K.J.; HOWLETT, B.H.; KHOURY, A.S.; FERN, S.M. & BURGHARDT, P.R. (2020). Three commonly utilized scholarly databases and a social network site provide different, but related, metrics of pharmacy faculty publication. Publications, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/PUBLICATIONS8020018
CHI, P.-S.; GORRAIZ, J. & GLÄNZEL, W. (2019). Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1461-1473.
CHUBIN, D. & GARFIELD, E. (1980). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 2(1), 91-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016602
CONDIT FAGAN, J. (2017). An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda. Information Technology & Libraries, 36(2), 7-47.
CRONIN, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150102700101
DELGADO LÓPEZ-CÓZAR, E.; ORDUÑA-MALEA, E. & MARTÍN-MARTÍN, A. (2019). Google Scholar as a Data Source for Research Assessment. In Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 95-127). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4
DIMENSIONS. (2019). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association Des Bibliothèques de La Santé Du Canada, 40(1), 23-26. https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29405
DORA. (2018). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/
FECYT. (2018). Scopus. https://www.fecyt.es/es/recurso/scopus
GARCOVICH, D.; ZHOU WU, A.; SÁNCHEZ SÚCAR, A.-M. & ADOBES MARTIN, M. (2020). The online attention to orthodontic research: an Altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018. Progress in Orthodontics, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00332-6
GONZÁLEZ-PARDO, R.; REPISO, R. & ARROYAVE-CABRERA, J. (2020). Revistas iberoamericanas de comunicación a través de las bases de datos Latindex, Dialnet, DOAJ, Scopus, AHCI, SSCI, REDIB, MIAR, ESCI y Google Scholar Metrics. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 43(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.0.15.149/redc.2020.4.1732
GOOGLE SCHOLAR. (n.d.). About Google Scholar. Retrieved 28 April 2022, from https://scholar.google.com/intl/en-US/scholar/about.html
GRANT, M.J. & BOOTH, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-1842.2009.00848.X
GUALLAR, J.; LÓPEZ-ROBLES, J.-R.; ABADAL, E.; GAMBOA ROSALES, N.-K. & COBO, M.-J. (2020). Revistas españolas de Documentación en Web of Science: análisis bibliométrico y evolución temática de 2015 a 2019. El Profesional de La Informacion, 29(6), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.0.12.73/epi.2020.nov.06
HARZING, A.-W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y
HICKS, D.; WOUTERS, P.; WALTMAN, L.; RIJCKE, S. & RAFOLS, I. (2015). El Manifiesto de Leiden sobre indicadores de investigación. CTS: Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 10(29), 275-280.
LAMBA, M.; KASHYAP, N. & MARGAM, M. (2020). Research evaluation of computer science publications using Altmetrics: a cohort study of Indian Central Universities. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 70(4-5), 459-486. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-07-2020-0097
LARIVIÈRE, V., & SUGIMOTO, C.R. (2019). The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. Springer Handbooks, 2018, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1
MARTÍN-MARTÍN, A.; ORDUNA-MALEA, E.; AYLLÓN, J. & DELGADO LÓPEZ-CÓZAR, E. (2016). Back to the past: on the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. In Scientometrics (Vol. 107, Issue 3, pp. 1477-1487).
MINGERS, J. & MEYER, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111-1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x
OLMEDA-GÓMEZ, C. & PERIANES-RODRÍGUEZ, A. (2019). Altmetría como especialidad de investigación (Dimensions, 2005-2018). El Profesional de La Información, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.nov.08
ORDUÑA-MALEA, E.; MARTÍN-MARTÍN, A. & DELGADO-LÓPEZ-CÓZAR, E. (2016). La bibliometría que viene: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) y las múltiples caras del impacto de un autor. El Profesional de La Información, 25(3), 485-496.
ROVIRA, C.; CODINA, L. & LOPEZOSA, C. (2021). Language Bias in the Google Scholar Ranking Algorithm. Future Internet, 13(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13020031
ROVIRA, C.; GUERRERO-SOLÉ, F. & CODINA, L. (2018). Las citas recibidas como principal factor de posicionamiento SEO en la ordenación de resultados de Google Scholar. El Profesional de La Información, 27(3), 559. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.09
SINGH, P.; PIRYANI, R.; SINGH, V.K. & PINTO, D. (2020). Revisiting subject classification in academic databases: A comparison of the classification accuracy of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(2), 2471-2476. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179906
SUN, Y. & XIA, B. (2016). The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: a citation analysis of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1965-1978.
TSAY, M.; TSENG, Y. & WU, T. (2019). Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1323-1338.
VAN RAAN, A. (2019). Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics. In Springer Handbooks (pp. 237-280). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_10
VKKM, H. & AZEEZ, A. (2021). Impact of Scholarly Articles on Social media: An Altmetric Mapping of University of Calicut, Kerala-India. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2021(April), 1-19.
WILDER, E.I. & WALTERS, W.H. (2021). Using conventional bibliographic databases for social science research: Web of science and scopus are not the only options. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.29024/SAR.36/METRICS/
YANG, S.; ZHENG, M.; YU, Y. & WOLFRAM, D. (2021). Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities? Journal of Informetrics, 15(1), 101120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101120
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Elena Pastor Ramon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit to this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and ensure the magazine's right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoComercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and the initial publication in this magazine, with no commercial purpose.
Authors can establish separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the magazine (for example, to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
It allows and authors are encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (eg, in institutional repositories or on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as a citation more early and most of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
