<div dir="ltr">Esperando sea de su interés....<div><br></div><div>Buen fin de semana</div><div>Juan Manuel Mancilla<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">SCIELO MEXICO</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx">scielo@dgb.unam.mx</a>></span><br>Date: 2017-04-04 10:45 GMT-05:00<br>Subject: Contribución al debate de la relevancia del Google Académico comparado con Web of Science :::: RE: LSE Impact Blog: "Google Scholar es una seria alternativa a Web of Science"<br>To: "<a href="mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx">scielo@dgb.unam.mx</a>" <<a href="mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx">scielo@dgb.unam.mx</a>><br><br><br>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font color="#3333ff"><b>reenvío comentarios del Dr. Dávalos Sotelo
(INECOL-Xalapa):</b></font><br>
<div class="m_5173811170551387112moz-forward-container">
<div class="m_5173811170551387112WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%"><br>
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Contribución al
debate de la relevancia del Google Académico comparado con
<i>Web of Science</i></span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;color:windowtext"><u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Texto escrito por
Raymundo Dávalos Sotelo (3 de abril de 2017)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Estimado Antonio:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Recientemente
escribí dos artículos relacionados con el tema que destacas
en esta nota referente a la relevancia del portal de Google
Académico (o <i>Google Scholar</i> – <i>GS</i> – como se
conoce en inglés) como un elemento válido para citación de
documentos científicos y técnicos en comparación con el
índice <i>JCR</i> de <i>Web of Science</i> (<i>WofS</i>)
de la empresa Thomson Reuters (hoy de Clarivate Analysis).
El argumento central de los dos artículos (Dávalos Sotelo,
2015a y 2015b) es que las citas generadas por <i>GS</i>
tienen valor equivalente a las del <i>JCR;</i> esto, debido
a que la base de datos de <i>WofS</i> es un subconjunto de
la base más amplia de <i>GS</i>. Existe una regularidad
estadística entre las citas generadas en ambas bases de
datos, es decir, si se conoce la cifra de citas de una base,
se puede derivar la de la otra con un alto grado de
precisión estadística, por lo tanto, no es indispensable
consultar la base de datos comercial para valorar la
influencia de los documentos científicos, si se cuenta con
la información de la base de datos de libre acceso <i>GS</i>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Estos artículos se
escribieron con la intención de aportar puntos de vista al
debate del acceso abierto de la información científica,
debate que se está dando ampliamente en América Latina y al
cual <i>SciELO</i> ha contribuido de manera preponderante.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Recibe un cordial
saludo.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Dr.
Raymundo Dávalos Sotelo<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Editor
<i>Madera y Bosques</i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Instituto
de Ecología, A.C.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Xalapa,
Ver.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Tel:
+52(228) 842-1835; (228) 842-1800 ext. 6106<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Cel:
2288 240289<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">e-mail:
<a href="mailto:mabosque@inecol.mx" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">mabosque@inecol.mx</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="color:windowtext"><img style="width:3.927in;height:.6979in" id="m_5173811170551387112Imagen_x0020_1" src="cid:part2.BCD78F6A.D17B5053@dgb.unam.mx" height="67" border="0" width="377"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Referencias<u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dávalos-Sotelo,
Raymundo. (2015a). Una forma de evaluar el impacto de la
investigación científica.<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Madera y bosques</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>21</i>(spe),
7-16. Recuperado en 03 de abril de 2017, de <a href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-04712015000400001&lng=es&tlng=es" target="_blank">http://www.scielo.org.mx/<wbr>scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&<wbr>pid=S1405-04712015000400001&<wbr>lng=es&tlng=es</a>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dávalos
Sotelo, Raymundo. (2015b). Sobre las formas de evaluación de
las revistas científicas.<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">Madera y bosques</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>21</i>(3), 07-15.
Recuperado en 03 de abril de 2017, de <a href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-04712015000300001&lng=es&tlng=es" target="_blank">http://www.scielo.org.mx/<wbr>scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&<wbr>pid=S1405-04712015000300001&<wbr>lng=es&tlng=es</a>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Resúmenes
de los artículos:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dávalos-Sotelo,
Raymundo. (2015a).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<h3 style="background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:maroon">Madera
bosques vol.21 no. spe Xalapa dic. 2015<u></u><u></u></span></h3>
<p style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Una
forma de evaluar el impacto de la investigación científica</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">One way to evaluate the impact of
scientific research</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Raymundo
Dávalos-Sotelo<sup>1</sup></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <i><sup>1</sup></i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Instituto de
Ecología, A.C., Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Xalapa,
Ver.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:raymundo.davalos@inecol.mx" target="_blank">raymundo.davalos@inecol.<wbr>mx</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Resumen</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">El
criterio más usado internacionalmente para evaluar las
revistas científicas se basa en el valor del Factor de
Impacto (<i>FI</i>) generado de la base de datos<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Journal of
Citation Reports</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>(<i>JCR</i>)
publicado anualmente en la plataforma<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Web of Science</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>de<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Thomson Reuters.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>El argumento central
de este artículo es que la forma más completa de evaluar el
trabajo de los científicos es a través de métricas de fácil
acceso y de alcance general como el índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>de Hirsch a partir
de la base de datos de<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google
Académico</i>, más algunas otras consideraciones. Se
reconoce que, si se trata de medir el impacto de la
investigación en ámbitos meramente académicos, el Factor de
Impacto (<i>FI</i>) del<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>es el medio más
adecuado, pero si se trata de medir el impacto de la
investigación en el mundo real, entonces se deben usar otras
métricas y criterios de valoración. Aquí se sugiere que con
la información incluida en la plataforma de<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google Scholar</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>se refleja de una
manera más natural el verdadero alcance de las publicaciones
entre un público usuario más heterogéneo. Para los países en
vías de desarrollo, se destaca que es más importante definir
sus políticas de apoyo a la investigación que el buscar la
mayor visibilidad internacional o relevancia global de sus
revistas. Se ha demostrado aquí que el mensaje es lo
importante y no el medio. Sin embargo, las revistas
científicas merecen la mayor de las atenciones por parte de
las instancias responsables de las ciencias en los países en
vías de desarrollo.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Palabras
clave:</span></b><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">cienciometría,
factor de impacto,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google
Scholar</i>, índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i>,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Thomson Reuters</i>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Abstract</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">The internationally most widely used criterion
to evaluate scientific journals is based on the value of the
impact Factor (<i>FI</i>) generated from the<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Journal Citation
Reports</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>(<i>JCR</i>)
database published annually on the<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Web of Science</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>platform from<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Thomson Reuters</i>.
The central argument of this article is that the most
complete form of evaluation of the work of scientists
through metrics of easy access and general scope as the
index<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>of Hirsch from the
database of<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google
Scholar</i>, plus some other considerations. The author
recognizes that if the goal to achieve is to measure the
impact of purely academic research, the<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>impact Factor (<i>FI</i>)
is the most appropriate means, but if the objective is to
measure the impact of research in the real world, then other
metrics and assessment criteria should be used. Here it is
suggested that the true relevance of the publications is
reflected in a more natural way among a heterogeneous user
audience with the information included in the<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google Scholar</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>platform. For
developing countries, the paper highlights that it is more
important to define their policies of support for research
than to seek greater international visibility or global
relevance of their journals. It has been shown here that the
message is the important subject matter and not the means of
publication. Nevertheless, scientific journals do deserve
indeed the greatest attention by the responsible authorities
of the sciences in developing countries.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Keywords:</span></b><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">scienciometrics, impact factor,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google Scholar</i>,
h index,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Thomson
Reuters</i>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dávalos
Sotelo, Raymundo. (2015b).</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<h3 style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:maroon">Madera
bosques vol.21 no.3 Xalapa <wbr>sep./dic. 2015<u></u><u></u></span></h3>
<h4 style="margin-top:0cm;background:white;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px" id="m_5173811170551387112doi"> <b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:maroon"> </span></b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:maroon"><u></u><u></u></span></h4>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;line-height:106%;background:white" align="center"> <b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Sobre
las formas de evaluación de las revistas científicas</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;line-height:106%;background:white" align="center"> <b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">On the evaluation methods for scientific
journals</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;line-height:106%;background:white" align="center"> <b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Raymundo
Dávalos Sotelo<sup>1</sup></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <i><sup>1</sup></i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Red de Ambiente y
Sustentabilidad. Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Xalapa,
Veracruz, México.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:raymundo.davalos@inecol.mx" target="_blank">raymundo.davalos@<wbr>inecol.mx</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Resumen</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">En
la actualidad hay un enorme interés y amplias discusiones en
el medio académico para encontrar métodos eficaces de
evaluación del impacto del trabajo de los científicos. Se
argumenta aquí que el impacto de la información generada por
los investigadores tiene relevancia más allá de una mera
contabilidad de citas a los productos académicos. Sin
embargo, sigue existiendo la necesidad de valorar de una
manera más inmediata el efecto o la influencia del trabajo
científico. El argumento central de esta contribución es que
el número de citas generado por el motor<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google Scholar
(GS)</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>representa
una medida más precisa y completa del trabajo de los
investigadores individuales que el Factor de Impacto<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>FI</i>. Asociado
a<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>GS</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>existe el concepto
del Índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h5</i>.
Para ver si hay alguna regularidad en la proporción de citas
entre las dos bases de datos, se hizo una búsqueda de citas
para artículos de autores considerados representativos para<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Madera y Bosques:</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>Williams-Linera<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>et al.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>y Yáñez-Arancibia<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>et al.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>por ser de los más
citados. El valor del coeficiente de determinación demuestra
la extraordinaria regularidad de esta relación. Para el caso
de la valoración de las revistas, se argumenta que el índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>es más apropiado que
el<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR</i>.
Reiteramos que el impacto real del trabajo de investigación
rebasa el ámbito del trabajo académico y se refleja en el
uso de la información en áreas alejadas de los círculos
académicos, pero que tienen amplia repercusión en la
sociedad como, por ejemplo, la información requerida para
definir las áreas naturales protegidas.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Palabras clave:</span></b><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Google Scholar,</span></i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h5</i>,
índice<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i>,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR</i>,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Web of Science.</i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Abstract</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Today there is a huge interest and wide
discussions in the academic world to find effective methods
of evaluation of the impact of the work of the scientists.
It is argued here that the impact of the information
generated by researchers has relevance beyond a mere
accounting of citations to academic products. However, there
remains the need to assess in a more immediate way the
effect or influence of scientific work. The central argument
of this contribution is that the number of citations
generated by the engine<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Google
Scholar (GS)</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>represents
a far more accurate and complete the work of individual
researchers that<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>FI</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>impact Factor.
Associated with<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>GS,</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>there is the concept
of index<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h5</i>.
To see if there are any regularity in the proportion of
citations between the two databases, a search for citations
was made to articles for authors considered representative:
Williams-Linera<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>et
al.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>and
Yáñez-Arancibia<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>et
al.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>for
being the most cited. The value of the coefficient of
determination shows the extraordinary regularity of this
relationship. In the case of the valuation of the journals,
it is argued that the index<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>is the most
appropriate to the<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR.</i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span>We reiterate that
the real impact of the research work is beyond the scope of
academic work and is reflected in the use of information in
remote areas of academia, but that have broad impact on
society as for example, the information required to define
the protected natural areas.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Keywords:</span></b><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span><i><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Google Scholar,</span></i><span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">index<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h5</i>,
index<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>h</i>,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>JCR</i>,<span class="m_5173811170551387112apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Web of Science<u></u><u></u></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="color:windowtext" lang="ES">De:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext" lang="ES"> SCIELO MEXICO [<a class="m_5173811170551387112moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx" target="_blank">mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx</a>]
<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> lunes, 3 de abril de 2017 05:37 p. m.<br>
<b>Para:</b> <a class="m_5173811170551387112moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:scielo@dgb.unam.mx" target="_blank">scielo@dgb.unam.mx</a><br>
<b>Asunto:</b> LSE Impact Blog: "Google Scholar es una
seria alternativa a Web of Science"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><em><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#3333ff">Anne-Wil
Harzing</span></b></em><em><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#3333ff"> , profesora en
Middlesex University, Londres, expone la siguiente
argumentación en defensa del uso de Google Scholar y el
software Publish or Perish para el análisis de citación: </span></em><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Publicado en : <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/03/16/google-scholar-is-a-serious-alternative-to-web-of-science/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-2" target="_blank">http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/<wbr>impactofsocialsciences/2017/<wbr>03/16/google-scholar-is-a-<wbr>serious-alternative-to-web-of-<wbr>science/?subscribe=success#<wbr>blog_subscription-2</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<h2><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/03/16/google-scholar-is-a-serious-alternative-to-web-of-science/" target="_blank">Google
Scholar is a serious alternative to Web of Science</a><u></u><u></u></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>**</span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Los bibliómetras
y autoridades universitarias siguen confiando exclusivamente
-o casi- en la base de datos Web of Science (antes ISI,
luego de Thomson Reuters y ahora de Clarivate Analytics)
para la evaluación del impacto medido en citas (análisis de
citación)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Las métricas
generadas por Google Scholar han sido desestimadas por su
cobertura "demasiado generosa", esto es, por considerar
documentos y revistas de muy distinta índole y sin utilizar
filtros con criterios de calidad académica</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Google Scholar
argumenta que esto no es así y que sólo indexa publicaciones
académicas ( “<a href="https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/publishers.html" target="_blank">we
work with publishers of scholarly information to index
peer-reviewed papers, theses, preprints, abstracts, and
technical reports from all disciplines of research</a>.” )</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Ciertamente,
algunas citas no académicas se pueden colar, tales como
manuales del estudiante, guías de la biblioteca o notas
editoriales. No obstante, estos defectos incidentales no
afectan a métricas de citas tan robustas como el índice h. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Por ello, aunque
puede haber alguna sobreestimación del número de citas no
académicas en Google Scholar, para muchas disciplinas esto
es preferible a la subestimación muy significativa y
sistemática de las citas académicas en WoS o Scopus. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• Además, este
tipo de citas es contabilizada para todos los documentos y
títulos de la fuente de datos, por lo que la comparación es
válida.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">• WoS, por su
parte, mantiene un sesgo favorable a la ciencia publicada en
inglés y en revistas norteamericanas. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">•<b> Las
ciencias sociales y humanidades están en desventaja frente
las ciencias exactas y naturales</b>. Butler (2006)
analizó la distribución de la producción de publicaciones
por campo para las universidades australianas entre 1999 y
2001. Encontró que entre el 69.3% y 84.3% de los artículos
producidos en las áreas de ciencias químicas, biológicas,
físicas y médicas se publicaron en revistas indizadas en
WoS; mientras que sólo fue así para el 4,4% al 18,7% de los
artículos en áread de ciencias sociales como administración,
historia de la educación y las artes. Muchas revistas de
alta calidad en el campo de la economía y los negocios no
están incluidas en WoS. Sólo entre el 30% y el 40% de las
revistas de contabilidad, mercadotecnia, administración
están enumeradas en la lista <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list" target="_blank">
Journal Quality List </a>elaborada por la autora de este
comentario (una lista ya de por sí muy selectiva según ella
misma lo comenta) están inlcuidas en WoS. No hay duda de que
- en promedio - las revistas incluidas en WoS se perciben
como de mayor calidad. Sin embargo, hay un número muy
importante de revistas indexadas que no están incluidas en
WoS que tienen un índice h más alto que el promedio.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">•<b> WoS tiene una
cobertura muy limitada de publicaciones que no son
revistas:</b> en segundo lugar, incluso en la búsqueda de
referencia citada, WoS sólo incluye citas en revistas
indizadas en WoS. En la función de búsqueda general, ignora
completamente todas las publicaciones que no están en las
revistas listadas en WoS. Como resultado, una gran mayoría
de las publicaciones y citas en las ciencias sociales y
humanidades, así como en la ingeniería y la informática, se
pasan por alto. En las ciencias sociales y las humanidades
esto se debe principalmente a que ignora por completo de
libros, capítulos de libros y publicaciones en otros idiomas
que no sean el inglés así como documentos en revistas no
pertenecientes a WoS. En la ingeniería y la informática,
esto se debe principalmente a la omisión de los <i>proceedings</i>.
WoS ha introducido recientemente los <i>proceedings</i> en
su base de datos. Sin embargo, no proporciona detalles sobre
qué <i>proceedings</i> están cubiertos más allá de enumerar
algunas disciplinas que si están cubiertas. No pude
encontrar ninguna de mis propias publicaciones en los <i>proceedings</i>.
Como resultado, WoS subestima seriamente tanto el número de
publicaciones y el número de citas para los académicos en
las ciencias sociales y humanidades, así como en la
ingeniería y la informática.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">•<b> Los errores
de Google Scholar han sido exaherados . </b>Peter Jacsó,
destacado académico en ciencias de la información y
bibliotecología, ha publicado varios artículos bastante
críticos sobre Google Scholar (por ejemplo, Jacsó, 2006a y
2006b). Documentos como “<a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610659201" target="_blank">Dubious
hit counts and cuckoo’s eggs</a>” y “<a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610675816" target="_blank">Deflated,
inflated and phantom citation counts</a>” han hecho que
decanos, autoridades académicas y comisiones evaluadoras
tengan base para considerar que Google Scholar proporciona
datos no confiables. Sin embargo, el grueso de la crítica de
Jacsó está nivelada en el inconsistente número de resultados
de Google Scholar para búsquedas por palabra clave, que no
son relevantes para las búsquedas de autores y revistas que
la mayoría de los académicos utilizan con <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish" target="_blank">
Publish or Perish</a> . Para este tipo de búsquedas, son
importantes las siguientes advertencias:<br>
<br>
- <b>Las métricas de citas son robustas e insensibles a
errores ocasionales</b>: la mayoría de las métricas
utilizadas en <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish" target="_blank">Publish
or Perish</a> son bastante robustas e insensibles a
errores ocasionales, ya que generalmente no cambian el
h-index o g-index y solo tendrán un impacto menor en el
Número de citas por artículo. No hay duda de que el análisis
automático de Google Scholar ocasionalmente proporciona
resultados absurdos. Sin embargo, estos errores no parecen
ser tan frecuentes o tan importantes como lo implican los
artículos de Jacsó. Además, tampoco no afectan mucho los
resultados de las consultas por autor o revista, si es que
lo hacen.<br>
<u>El análisis de Google Scholar ha mejorado
significativamente</u>: Google Scholar también ha mejorado
significativamente su análisis desde que le señalaron sus
errores. Sin embargo, muchos académicos siguen refiriéndose
a los artículos de 2006 de Jacsó como argumentos
convincentes contra cualquier uso de Google Scholar. Yo
diría que esto es inapropiado. Como académicos, estamos
conscientes de que todos nuestros resultados de
investigación incluyen un cierto margen de error. <br>
<u>Los errores de Google Scholar son aleatorios y no
sistemáticos</u>: lo más importante es que los errores son
aleatorios en lugar de sistemáticos. No tengo ninguna razón
para creer que los errores de Google Scholar identificados
en los artículos de Jacsó son algo más que aleatorios. Por
lo tanto, no suelen beneficiar o perjudicar a académicos o
revistas individuales.<br>
<u>ISI y Scopus tienen errores sistemáticos de cobertura</u>:
en cambio, las bases de datos comerciales como WoS y Scopus
tienen errores sistemáticos, ya que no incluyen muchas
revistas en ciencias sociales y humanas, ni tampoco tienen
una buena cobertura de conferencias, libros o capítulos de
libros. Por lo tanto, aunque siempre es una buena idea
utilizar múltiples fuentes de datos, rechazar a Google
Scholar debido a presuntos errores de análisis no es
racional. Tampoco es racional asumir que WoS está libre de
errores simplemente porque cobra altas tarifas de
suscripción.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%">******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>**</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Publicado en : <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/03/16/google-scholar-is-a-serious-alternative-to-web-of-science/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-2" target="_blank">http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/<wbr>impactofsocialsciences/2017/<wbr>03/16/google-scholar-is-a-<wbr>serious-alternative-to-web-of-<wbr>science/?subscribe=success#<wbr>blog_subscription-2</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<h2><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/03/16/google-scholar-is-a-serious-alternative-to-web-of-science/" target="_blank">Google
Scholar is a serious alternative to Web of Science</a><u></u><u></u></h2>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h3>Share this post:<u></u><u></u></h3>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><em>Many bibliometricians and
university administrators remain wary of Google Scholar
citation data, preferring “the gold standard” of Web of
Science instead. </em><strong><i>Anne-Wil Harzing</i></strong><em>,
who developed the Publish or Perish software that uses
Google Scholar data, here sets out to challenge some of
the misconceptions about this data source and explain
why it offers a serious alternative to Web of Science.
In addition to its flaws having been overstated, Google
Scholar’s coverage of high-quality publications is more
comprehensive in many areas, including in the social
sciences and humanities, books and book chapters,
conference proceedings and non-English language
publications.</em><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish" target="_blank">Publish
or Perish</a> uses <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish/tutorial/google-scholar" target="_blank">Google
Scholar</a> as one of its <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish/manual/using/data-sources" target="_blank">data
sources</a> (the other being <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/06/microsoft-academic-search-a-phoenix-arisen-from-the-ashes" target="_blank">Microsoft
Academic</a>). Many bibliometricians and university
administrators are fairly conservative in their approach
to citation analysis. It is not unusual to see them prefer
the Web of Science (ISI for short) as “the gold standard”
and discard Google Scholar out of hand, simply because
they have heard some wild-west stories about its “overly
generous” coverage. These stories are typically based one
or more of the following misconceptions, which I will
dispute below.<u></u><u></u></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <span>First,
the impression that everything “on the web” citing an
academic’s work counts as a citation.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <span>Second,
the assumption that any publication that is not listed
in the Web of Science is not worth considering at all.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <span>Third, a
general impression that citation counts in Google
Scholar are completely unreliable.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><strong>Not everything
published on the internet counts in Google Scholar</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">Some academics are under the
misplaced impression that anything posted on the internet
that includes references will be counted in Google
Scholar. This might also be the source behind the
misconception that one can put simply put phantom papers
online to improve one’s citation count. However, Google
Scholar only indexes scholarly publications. As its
website indicates: “<a href="https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/publishers.html" target="_blank">we
work with publishers of scholarly information to index
peer-reviewed papers, theses, preprints, abstracts, and
technical reports from all disciplines of research</a>.”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">Some non-scholarly citations,
such as student handbooks, library guides or editorial
notes slip through. However, incidental problems in this
regard are unlikely to distort citation metrics,
especially <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/07/from-hindex-to-hia-the-ins-and-outs-of-research-metrics" target="_blank">robust
ones such as the h-index</a>. Hence, although there
might be some overestimation of the number of
non-scholarly citations in Google Scholar, for many
disciplines this is preferable to the very significant and
systematic underestimation of scholarly citations in ISI
or Scopus. Moreover, as long as one compares like with
like, i.e. compares citation records for the <em>same</em> data
source, this should not be a problem at all.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><strong>Non-ISI listed
publications can be high-quality publications</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">There is also a frequent
assumption amongst research administrators that ISI
listing is a stamp of quality and that hence one should
ignore non-ISI listed publications and citations. There
are two problems with this assumption. First, ISI has a
bias towards science, <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/06/do-google-scholar-scopus-and-the-web-of-science-speak-your-language" target="_blank">English-language
and North American journals</a>. Second, ISI completely
ignores a vast majority of publications in the social
sciences and humanities.<u></u><u></u></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ISI
journal listing is very incomplete in the social
sciences and humanities:</span></em><span> ISI’s
listing of journals is much more comprehensive in the
sciences than in the <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/09/citation-analysis-for-the-social-sciences-metrics-and-datasources" target="_blank">social
sciences and humanities</a>. Butler (2006) analysed
<a href="http://www.chass.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PAP20061102LB.pdf" target="_blank">the
distribution of publication output by field for
Australian universities between 1999 and 2001</a>.
She found that whereas for the chemical, biological,
physical and medical/health sciences between 69.3% and
84.6% of the publications were published in ISI listed
journals, this was the case for only 4.4%-18.7% of the
publications in the social sciences such as
management, history education and arts. Many
high-quality journals in the field of economics and
business are not ISI listed. Only 30%-40% of the
journals in accounting, marketing and general
management and strategy listed on my <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list" target="_blank">Journal
Quality List </a>(already a pretty selective list)
are ISI listed. There is no doubt that – on average –
journals that are ISI listed are perceived to be of
higher quality. However, there is a very substantial
number of non-ISI indexed journals that have a higher
than average h-index.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ISI
has very limited coverage of non-journal
publications:</span></em><span> second,
even in the cited reference search, ISI only includes
citations in ISI listed journals. In the general
search function it completely ignores any publications
that are not in ISI-listed journals. As a result a
vast majority of publications and citations in the
social sciences and humanities, as well as in
engineering and computer science, are ignored. In the
social sciences and humanities this is mainly caused
by a complete neglect of books, book chapters,
publications in languages other than English, and
publications in non-ISI listed journals. In
engineering and computer science, this is mostly
caused by a neglect of conference proceedings. ISI has
recently introduced conference proceedings in its
database. However, it does not provide any details of
which conferences are covered beyond listing some
disciplines that are covered. I was unable to find any
of my own publications in conference proceedings. As a
result ISI <a href="http://www.harzing.com/publications/white-papers/citation-analysis-across-disciplines" target="_blank">very
seriously underestimates both the number of
publications and the number of citations</a> for
academics in the social sciences and humanities and in
engineering and computer science.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><strong>Google Scholar’s flaws
have been played up far too much</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">Peter Jacsó, a prominent
academic in information and library science, has published
several rather critical articles about Google Scholar
(e.g. Jacsó, <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610659201" target="_blank">2006a</a>
and <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610675816" target="_blank">2006b</a>).
When confronted with titles such as “<a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610659201" target="_blank">Dubious
hit counts and cuckoo’s eggs</a>” and “<a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/14684520610675816" target="_blank">Deflated,
inflated and phantom citation counts</a>”, Deans,
academic administrators and tenure/promotion committees
could be excused for assuming Google Scholar provides
unreliable data.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">However, the bulk of Jacsó’s
critique is levelled at Google Scholar’s inconsistent
number of results for keyword searches, which are not at
all relevant for the author and journal impact searches
that most academics use <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish" target="_blank">Publish
or Perish</a> for. For these types of searches, the
following caveats are important.<u></u><u></u></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Citation
metrics are robust and insensitive to occasional
errors:</span></em><span> most of
the metrics used in Publish or Perish are fairly
robust and insensitive to occasional errors as they
will not generally change the <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish/tutorial/metrics/h-and-g-index" target="_blank">h-index
or g-index</a> and will only have a minor impact on
the number of citations per paper. There is no doubt
that Google Scholar’s automatic parsing occasionally
provides us with nonsensical results. However, these
errors do not appear to be as frequent or as important
as implied by Jacsó’s articles. They also do not
generally impact the results of author or journal
queries much, if at all.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Google
Scholar parsing has improved significantly:</span></em><span> Google
Scholar has also <a href="http://www.harzing.com/publications/online-papers#gs_coverage" target="_blank">significantly
improved</a> its parsing since the errors were
pointed out to them. However, many academics are still
referring to Jacsó’s 2006 articles as convincing
arguments against <strong>any</strong> use of Google
Scholar. I would argue this is inappropriate. As
academics, we are only all too well aware that <strong>all</strong> of
our research results include a certain error margin.
We cannot expect citation data to be any different.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Google
Scholar errors are random rather than systematic:</span></em><span> what is
most important is that errors are <strong>random</strong> rather
than <strong>systematic</strong>. I have no reason to
believe that the Google Scholar errors identified in
Jacsó’s articles are anything else than random. Hence
they will not normally advantage or disadvantage
individual academics or journals.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal"> <em><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ISI
and Scopus have systematic errors of coverage:</span></em><span> in
contrast, commercial databases such as ISI and Scopus
have <strong>systematic</strong> errors as they do not
include many journals in the social sciences and
humanities, nor have good coverage of conferences
proceedings, books or book chapters. Therefore,
although it is always a good idea to use multiple data
sources, rejecting Google Scholar out of hand because
of presumed parsing errors is not rational. Nor is <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2017/02/web-of-science-to-be-robbed-of-10-years-of-citations-in-one-week" target="_blank">presuming
ISI is error-free</a> simply because it charges high
subscription fees.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><img style="width:6.9791in;height:3.4895in" id="m_5173811170551387112_x0000_i1025" height="335" border="0" width="670"><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><strong>Conclusion</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable">As I have <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/08/sacrifice-a-little-accuracy-for-a-lot-more-comprehensive-coverage" target="_blank">argued
in the past</a>, Google Scholar and <a href="http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish" target="_blank">Publish
or Perish</a> have <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2017/02/publish-or-perish-realising-google-scholars-potential-to-democratise-citation-analysis" target="_blank">democratised
citation analysis</a>. Rather than leaving it in the
hands of those with access to commercial databases with
high subscription fees, anyone with a computer and
internet access can now run their own analyses. If you’d
like to know more about this, <a href="http://www.harzing.com/download/Madrid%20GS%20demo.pdf" target="_blank">have
a look at this presentation</a>.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><em>This blog post originally
appeared on the </em> <a href="http://www.harzing.com/blog/2017/02/google-scholar-is-a-serious-alternative-to-web-of-science" target="_blank"><em>author’s
personal website</em></a><em> and is republished here
with permission. Copyright © 2017 Anne-Wil Harzing.</em><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><em>Featured image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/maret1983/6262154338/" target="_blank">Viele
bunte Bälle</a> by Maret Hosemann (licensed under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC
BY 2.0</a> license).</em><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><em>Note: This article gives
the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE
Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics.
Please review our </em><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/about-the-blog/comments-policy/" target="_blank"><em>comments
policy</em></a><em> if you have any concerns on
posting a comment below.</em><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><strong>About the author</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_5173811170551387112selectionshareable"><em><b>Anne-Wil Harzing</b> is
Professor of International Management at Middlesex
University, London. In addition to her academic duties,
she also maintains the Journal Quality List and is the
driving force behind the popular Publish or Perish
software program.</em><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><br></div></div>