Search

Rankings are presented by disciplines of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law according to Google Scholar (GS) for the period 2002-2011. They are sorted according to the h-index which is the Bibliometric indicator adopted by Google. Intends this work check the breadth in coverage that has Google Scholar of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law and compare the differences over the period 2001-2010. Bibliographic searches were conducted in the month of March 2013. H-index is calculated from 1038 journals, of which 251 are Law, 157 education, 137 economy, 109 psychology, 87 sociology, 56 political science, 54 geography, 46 anthropology, 42 sports science, 39 urban, 36 library and information science and 24 communication [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rankings are presented by disciplines of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law according to Google Scholar (GS) for the period 2002-2011. They are sorted according to the h-index which is the Bibliometric indicator adopted by Google. Intends this work check the breadth in coverage that has Google Scholar of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law and compare the differences over the period 2001-2010. Bibliographic searches were conducted in the month of March 2013. H-index is calculated from 1038 journals, of which 251 are Law, 157 education, 137 economy, 109 psychology, 87 sociology, 56 political science, 54 geography, 46 anthropology, 42 sports science, 39 urban, 36 library and information science and 24 communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose-Google Scholar Citations (GSC) provides an institutional affiliation link which groups together authors who belong to the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this feature is able to identify and normalize all the institutions entered by the authors, and whether it is able to assign all researchers to their own institution correctly. Design/methodology/approach-Systematic queries to GSC's internal search box were performed under two different forms (institution name and institutional e-mail web domain) in September 2015. The whole Spanish academic system (82 institutions) was used as a test. Additionally, specific searches to companies (Google) and world-class universities were performed to identify and classify potential errors in the functioning of the feature. Findings-Although the affiliation tool works well for most institutions, it is unable to detect all existing institutions in the database, and it is not always able to create a unique standardized entry for each institution. Additionally, it also fails to group all the authors who belong to the same institution. A wide variety of errors have been identified and classified. Research limitations/implications-Even though the analyzed sample is good enough to empirically answer the research questions initially proposed, a more comprehensive study should be performed to calibrate the real volume of the errors. Practical implications-The discovered affiliation link errors prevent institutions from being able to access the profiles of all their respective authors using the institutions lists offered by GSC. Additionally, it introduces a shortcoming in the navigation features of Google Scholar which may impair web user experience. Social implications-Some institutions (mainly universities) are under-represented in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. This fact might jeopardize the visibility of institutions as well as the use of this feature in bibliometric or webometric analyses. Originality/value-This work proves inconsistencies in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. A whole national university system is systematically analyzed and several queries have been used to reveal errors in its functioning. The completeness of the errors identified and the empirical data examined are the most exhaustive to date regarding this topic. Finally, some recommendations about how to correctly fill in the affiliation data (both for authors and institutions) and how to improve this feature are provided as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to describe the obsolescence process of Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) as well as the effects of this decline in the coverage of disciplines and journals, and their influence in the representativeness of organizations. Design/methodology/approach -- The total number of records and those belonging to the most reputable journals (1,762) and organizations (346) according to the Field Rating indicator in each of the 15 fields and 204 sub-fields of MAS, have been collected and statistically analysed in March 2014, by means of an automated querying process via http, covering academic publications from 1700 to present. Findings -- MAS has no longer been updated since 2013, although this phenomenon began to be glimpsed in 2011, when its coverage plummeted. Throughout 2014, indexing of new records is still ongoing, but at a minimum rate, without following any apparent pattern. Research limitations/implications -- There are also retrospective records being indexed at present. In this sense, this research provides a picture of what MAS offered during March 2014 being queried directly via http. Practical implications -- The unnoticed obsolescence of MAS affects to the quality of the service offered to its users (both those who engage in scientific information seeking and also those who use it for quantitative purposes). Social implications -- The predominance of Google Scholar (GS) as monopoly in the academic search engines market as well as the prevalence of an open construction model (GS) vs a closed model (MAS). Originality/value -- A complete longitudinal analysis of disciplines, journals and organizations on MAS has been performed for the first time identifying an unnoticed obsolescence. Any public explanation or disclaimer note has been announced from the responsible company, something incomprehensible given its implications for the reliability and validity of bibliometric data provided on disciplines, journals, authors and congress as well as their fair representation on the academic search engine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]