Collaborative exploration on citation data sharing in Google Scholar

Authors

  • Tiago Rodrigo Marçal Murakami Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo - SP, Brasil.
  • Sibele Fausto Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo - SP, Brasil.
  • Ronaldo Ferreira de Araújo Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG). Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v10i2.731

Keywords:

Citation data, Google Scholar, Sharing, Journals, Scientific Collaboration

Abstract

The lack of indexing for the titles of scientific journals in the Social Sciences and Humanities in commercial databases makes it difficult to carry out an investigation on the impact of these journals. Open Access and tools as Google Scholar (GS) and software for data processing allow searches to be conducted through GS and the recovery of citations of articles, which can be regarded as an alternative to traditional databases on the impact of scientific production published in these areas. This study presents a pilot scheme to share citation data from Brazilian journals for further collaborative investigation by the Brazilian scientometrics community with the aim of encouraging greater use of GS for bibliometric purposes.

References

AGUILLO, I. F. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, v. 91, p. 343-351, 2012.

ARCHAMBAULT, E.; LARIVIÈRE, V. The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. In: UNESCO (Ed.). 2010 World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides. Paris: UNESCO; International Social Science Council, 2010. p. 251-254. Disponível em: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf. Acesso em 20 fev. 2014.

________; VIGNOLA-GAGNÉ, E.; CÔTÉ, G.; et al. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, v. 68, p. 329-342, 2006.

BAR-ILAN, J. Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, v.82, n. 3, p. 495-506, 2010.

________. Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, v. 74, n. 2, p. 257-271, 2008.

CAREGNATO, S. E. Google Acadêmico como ferramenta para os estudos de citações: avaliação da precisão das buscas por autor. Ponto de Acesso, Salvador, v.5, n.3, p. 72-86, dez. 2011.

DAVID, P. A. Towards a cyberinfrastructure for enhanced scientific collaboration: providing its ‘soft’ foundations may be the hardest part. In: KAHIN, B.; FORAY, D. Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. p. 431-453.

FAUSTO, S.; MUGNAINI, R. Os rankings como objeto dos estudos métricos da informação. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA E PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 14., Florianópolis, 2013. Florianópolis: ANCIB; UFSC, 2013. Disponível em: http://repositorios.questoesemrede.uff.br/repositorios/handle/123456789/2425. Acesso em 29 jun, 2014.

FRANDSEN, T. F.; NICOLAISEN, J. Intradisciplinary differences in database coverage and the consequences for bibliometric research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.59, n.10 p. 1570-1581, 2008.

HARZING, A.-W. A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, v. 93, n.3, p. 1057-1075, 2013.

________; VAN DER WAL, R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis? Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, v. 8, n.1, p. 62-71, 2008.

________. Publish or Perish. 2007. Disponível em: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm. Acesso em 20 jan. 2014.

HOOD, W. W.; WILSON, C. S. The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: how many databases are needed?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.52, n.14, p.1242-1254, 2001.

JACSÓ, P. Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, v. 34, n.1, p. 175-191, 2010.

________. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, v. 32, n.1, p.102-114,

2008.

________. As we may search: Comparison of major features of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, v. 89, n. 9, p. 1537-1547, 2005.

LARSEN, P. O.; VON INS, M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, v. 84, n. 3, p. 575-603, 2010.

MOCELIN, D.G. Formação de grupos de pesquisa e prática de pesquisa em grupo. In: FRANCO, M. E. D. P.; LONGHI, S. M.; RAMOS, M. G. P. (Org.). Universidade e pesquisa: espaços de produção do conhecimento. Pelotas: UFPel, 2009.

MUGNAINI, R.; STREHL, L.. Recuperação e impacto da produção científica na era google: uma análise comparativa entre o Google Acadêmico e a Web of Science. Enc. Bibli: R. Eletr. Bibliotecon. Ci. Inf., n. esp., 1º sem. 2008

NEUHAUS, C.; DANIEL, H-D. Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation, v. 64, n. 2, p. 193-210, 2007.

SAYÃO, L. F.; SALES, L. F. Dados abertos de pesquisa: ampliando o conceito de acesso livre. RECIIS – Rev. Eletron. de Comun. Inf. Inov. Saúde, v. 8, n. 2, p.76-92, jun. 2014.

VANZ, S.A.S.; STUMPF, I.R.C. Colaboração científica: revisão teórico-conceitual. Perspect. ciênc. inf. v.15, n.2, p. 42-45, 2010.

Published

05/12/2014

Issue

Section

Contemporary Challenges to the Collaborative Production in ST&I