The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

2021 ◽  
Vol 126 (4) ◽  
pp. 3667-3672
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index

Publishing patterns and citation performance of manuscripts relating to paediatric cardiology and congenital heart disease: comparison of paediatric and adult cardiology journals

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Rohit S. Loomba ◽  
Danielle Sheikholeslami ◽  
Aaron Dyson ◽  
Saul Flores ◽  
Enrique Villarreal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Congenital Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Congenital Heart ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Lower Number ◽  
The Other ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Paediatric Cardiology ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background: Manuscripts pertaining to paediatric cardiology and CHD have been published in a variety of different journals. Some of these journals are journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology, while others are focused on adult cardiology. Historically, it has been considered that manuscripts published in journals devoted to adult cardiology have greater citation potential. Our objective was to compare citation performance between manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and CHD published in paediatric as opposed to adult cardiology journals. Methods: We identified manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and CHD published in five journals of interest during 2014. Of these journals, two were primarily concerned with adult cardiology, while the other three focused on paediatric cardiology. The number of citations for these identified manuscripts was gathered from Google Scholar. We compared the number of citations (median, mean, and 25th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles), the potential for citation, and the h-index for the identified manuscripts. Results: We identified a total of 828 manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and congenital heart as published in the 5 journals during 2014. Of these, 783 (95%) were published in journals focused on paediatric cardiology, and the remaining 45 (5%) were published in journals focused on adult cardiology. The median number of citations was 41 in the manuscripts published in the journals focused on adult cardiology, as opposed to 7 in journals focused on paediatric cardiology (p < 0.001). The h-index, however, was greater for the journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology (36 versus 27). Conclusion: Approximately one-twentieth of the work relating to paediatric cardiology and CHD is published in journals that focus predominantly on adult cardiology. The median number of citations is greater when manuscripts concerning paediatric cardiology and CHD are published in these journals focused on adult cardiology. The h-index, however, is higher when the manuscripts are published in journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology. While such publications in journals that focus on adult cardiology tend to generate a greater number of citations than those achieved for works published in specialised paediatric cardiology journals, the potential for citation is no different between the journals. Due to the drastically lower number of manuscripts published in journals dedicated to adult cardiology, however, median performance is different.

Is Google scholar really scholarly?

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad Loan ◽  
Shueb Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Economic Recession ◽  
Child Labour ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Good Number

Purpose This paper aims to identify the scholarly nature of the results retrieved by the Google Scholar on the five major global problems, i.e. global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour. Design/methodology/approach The five terms (global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour) were searched into the Google Scholar database, and the first 50 retrieved hits were manually analysed to record the relevant bibliographic details. The scholarship of the results was measured by quality indices like h-index, Altmetrics and Journal Impact Factor. The Scopus – the world’s biggest abstract and citation database – was used to identify the h-index of the prolific authors, citations of articles and impact factor of journals. Findings The study reveals that Google Scholar retrieves a good number of publications on the selected global problems from reputed publishers such as Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, Cambridge University Press, Blackwell and Sage and published from well-developed countries such as the USA, UK and Switzerland. Google Scholar mostly retrieves articles and research papers from qualitative journals having a good impact factor such as Nature, Science, The Lancet, American Journal of Public Health, The Economic Journal, Social Science and Medicine and Annals of Tourism Research. These articles and books are contributed by the reputed authors having high h-index. The journal articles and books retrieved have also a good number of citations, although such results are limited. The results prove that Google Scholar is scholarly in nature to a great extent. Research limitations/implications The findings are limited to Google Scholar only and cannot be generalized for the rest of the search tools or databases. Further, the study included only five major global problems in the study, and thus, results cannot be applicable to other areas of knowledge. Practical implications The study is a checklist to know the retrieval performance of Google Scholar in terms of quality of content. Originality/value It is the first study of its kind that takes into account the nature of content on major global problems retrieved by the Google Scholar. It is also the first study that used bibliometric analysis to evaluate the quality of results retrieved.

scholarly journals Self-Citation Analysis on Google Scholar Dataset for H-Index Corrections

IEEE Access ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 126025-126036
Author(s):  
Fiaz Majeed ◽  
Muhammad Shafiq ◽  
Amjad Ali ◽  
Muhammad Awais Hassan ◽  
Syed Ali Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index

scholarly journals Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (3) ◽  
pp. 2505-2522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret K. Merga ◽  
Sayidi Mat Roni ◽  
Shannon Mason
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Job Security ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Data Reliability ◽  
H Index ◽  
The United Kingdom

AbstractIn the neoliberal environment of contemporary academia, an individual’s research rankings and outputs can shape their career security and progression. When applying for ongoing employment and promotional opportunities, academics may benchmark their performance against that of superior colleagues to demonstrate their performance in relation to their discipline. The H-index and citation rates are commonly used to quantify the value of an academic’s work, and they can be used comparatively for benchmarking purposes. The focus of this paper is to critically consider if Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education, by weighting up issues of data reliability and participation. The Google Scholar profiles of full professors at top ranked universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are analysed to explore how widespread Google Scholar use is in the education professoriate. Quartiles of impact are established in relation to H-index, with exploration of how gender is distributed across these quartiles. Limitations of using Google Scholar data are highlighted through a taxonomy of quality confounders, and the utility of Google Scholar as a legitimate tool for benchmarking against the professoriate in education is strongly challenged. As metrics continue to rise in their importance for academics’ job security and promotional prospects, reliance on metrics of dubious quality and uneven participation must be questioned.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Cabezas-Clavijo ◽  
E. Delgado-López-Cózar
Keyword(s):  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index

scholarly journals Use Of Altmetric And Bibliometric Indicators To Measure Scientific Productivity In The Fields Of Life And Earth Sciences: Case Study From Haiti

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 316
Author(s):  
Jasmine Césars ◽  
Magline Alexis ◽  
Evens Emmanuel
Keyword(s):  
Rank Correlation ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
H Index ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
Normality Test ◽  
Kolmogorov Smirnov ◽  
Number Of Citations

The objective of this study was to carry out, based on certain bibliometric and altimetric indicators, a summary assessment of the scientific productivity of Quisqueya University’s researchers in 3 specific fields: agronomy, the environment and health. An experimental framework was designed and implemented based on the quantitative information available on the academic social network ResearchGate, and on SCOPUS and Google scholar, out of a total of 12,731 citations enumerated for Quisqueya University as of December 31, 2020, 19% were for the environment, 19.3% were for health, 59.9% for agronomy and 1.8% for other sectors. All the sectors recorded a significant increase for the RG score altmetric indicator and for the two bibliometric indicators: number of citations and H-index. The data collected were analyzed using XLSTAT and R software. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied for each of the indicators. Pearson's rank correlation was used to calculate the correlations between the altmetric indicator (RG-Score) from ResearchGate and the bibliometric indicators (citation and H-index) from Google Scholar and Scopus. A significant positive correlation of α = 0.918 was observed between the number of citations on ResearchGate and on Google Scholar. a result in the same direction (α = 0.991) is also observed between the number of citations on ResearchGate and on Scopus. These correlations allow us to conclude that the work of these researchers was cited in publications published in journals referenced in the Web of Science by a rate exceeding 90%.

scholarly journals PROFIL GOOGLE SCHOLAR DOSEN UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA BERBASIS WEBOMETRICS

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Azkia Muharom Albantani
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
General Description ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
H Index ◽  
Data Source ◽  
Faculty Of Education ◽  
Index Value ◽  
Teachers Training

PROFIL GOOGLE SCHOLAR DOSEN UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA BERBASIS WEBOMETRICSAzkia Muharom Albantanie-mail: [email protected] Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah JakartaJalan Ir. Haji Juanda No.95 Ciputat, Tangerang SelatanAbstrak: Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan mendapatkan gambaran tentang profil dosen berbasis webometrics; mendapatkan gambaran tentang fasilitas UIN Jakarta berbasis webometrics; dan mendapatkan gambaran tentang profil dosen dalam Google Scholar. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode survei, terutama dalam menjaring responden sebagai sumber data. Dalam penyajian data, penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif analisis, yaitu menggambarkan hasil penelitian yangdiperoleh dari survei mengenai Profil Dosen FITK berbasis Google Scholar. Penelitian dilakukan dalam kurun waktu 6 bulan (1 April – 31 September 2015). Daftar Urut Kepangkatan (DUK) menunjukkan bahwa jumlah dosen tetap PNS FITK UIN Jakarta sebanyak 163 orang. Namun setelah dilakukan studi pelacakan, hanya 35 dosen yang baru memiliki profil dalam Google Scholar. Dari 35 dosen tersebut, baru 19 orang yang memiliki nilai dalam kutipan, h-index, dan h10-index. Prof. Dr. Abuddin Nata, MA merupakan dosen terproduktif dan paling banyak dikutip versi Google Scholar di lingkungan FITK UIN Jakarta. Karya-karya ilmiahnya sudah dikutip 1600-an kali di dalam karya ilmiah lain. Beliau juga memiliki nilai h-index tertinggi yaitu 17 (tujuh belas) dan nilai i10-index tertinggi yaitu 21 (dua puluh satu).Kata-kata Kunci: profil dosen, google scholar, webometrics GOOGLE SCHOLAR PROFILE OF LECTURERS BASED ON WEBOMETRICS AT UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTAAbstract: This research aims to obtain an overview of the profiles of lecturers based on webometrics, a general description of webometrics-based facilities at UIN Jakarta, and the profiles of the lecturers on Google Scholar. The method used in this study is a survey method, especially in taking the respondents as a data source. In presenting the data, this study uses descriptive analysis method which illustrates the results obtained from the survey of the profiles of FITK (Faculty of Education and Teachers Training) lecturers on Google Scholar. The study was conducted within a period of 6 months (April 1st to September 31st, 2015). List of Ranks shows the number of permanent lecturers (civil servants) of FITK UIN Jakarta is 163 lecturers. Nevertheless, after conducting a tracking study, there are 35 lecturers only who already have a profile account on Google Scholar. Out of 35 lecturers, only 19 lecturers havevalues in citations, h-index, and h10-index. Prof. Dr. Abuddin Nata, M.A. is the most prolific and most widely cited lecturer on Google Scholar in the Faculty of Education and Teachers Training (FITK) of UIN Jakarta. His scientific works have been cited 1600 times in other works. He has also the highest h-index value, 17 (seventeen), and the highest i10-index, 21 (twenty one).Keywords: profile of lecturer, google scholar, webometrics

scholarly journals Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Oliveira J e Silva ◽  
Graciela Maldonado ◽  
Tara Brigham ◽  
Aidan F Mullan ◽  
Audun Utengen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Spearman Correlation ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Academic Promotion ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Weak Positive Correlation

BACKGROUND The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars’ influence and impact. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. RESULTS A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation. CONCLUSIONS We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media–based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document