A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)

@article{MartnMartn2016ATA,
  title={A two-sided academic landscape: portrait of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)},
  author={Alberto Mart{\'i}n-Mart{\'i}n and Enrique Ordu{\~n}a-Malea and Juan Manuel Ayll{\'o}n and Emilio Delgado L{\'o}pez-C{\'o}zar},
  journal={ArXiv},
  year={2016},
  volume={abs/1607.02861}
}
The main objective of this paper is to identify and define the core characteristics of the set of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (document types, language, free availability, sources, and number of versions), on the hypothesis that the wide coverage of this search engine may provide a different portrait of these documents with respect to that offered by traditional bibliographic databases. To do this, a query per year was carried out from 1950 to 2013 identifying the top 1,000… 
Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison
TLDR
The main conclusion is that the data about highly-cited documents available in the inclusive database Google Scholar does indeed reveal significant coverage deficiencies in Web of Science and Scopus in several areas of research.
A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics
TLDR
The results suggest that it is feasible to use GSC and the MADAP method to produce an accurate depiction of the community of researchers working in Bibliometrics and their publication habits (main publication venues such as journals and book publishers).
Google Scholar as a source for scholarly evaluation: A bibliographic review of database errors
TLDR
The results indicate that the bibliographic corpus dedicated to errors in Google Scholar is still very limited, excessively fragmented, and diffuse; the findings have not been based on any systematic methodology or on units that are comparable to each other, so they cannot be quantified, or their impact analysed, with any precision.
Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: a retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
TLDR
This work proves that the url-based method to calculate institutional productivity in GS is not a good proxy for the total number of publications indexed in WoS and Scopus, at least in the national context analyzed.
Big in the Big Ten: Highly Cited Works and Their Characteristics
ABSTRACT For this study, the 100 most highly cited items from Scopus were examined for each Big Ten Academic Alliance school (plus University of Chicago) to determine format use, subjects covered,
Metadata Quality and Academic Visibility Associated with Document Type Coverage in Institutional Repositories of Peruvian Universities
TLDR
It is concluded that the highest proportion of academic visibility is concentrated in private universities, and the metadata quality number of items integrated in Alicia favors public universities.
Characteristics of Malaysian highly cited papers
Highly cited papers serve as a proxy for excellence. In this paper, we identify Malaysia’s highly-cited papers and explore the characteristics of these papers. The research question posed is “What
Research output and impact of the fields of management, economics, and sociology in spain and france: An analysis using google scholar and scopus
TLDR
It is demonstrated that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 67 REFERENCES
Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields
TLDR
The aim of the study was to find out about the sources of full-text items and to look at subject differences in terms of number of versions, times cited, rate of open access availability and sources ofFull-text files in Google Scholar.
Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis
TLDR
A novel approach is introduced to check the usefulness of this database for bibliometric analysis, and especially research evaluation, instead of names of authors or institutions, a webometric analysis of academic web domains is performed.
Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar
TLDR
This paper examined these three citation databases through the citations of the book “Introduction to informetrics” by Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau, finding that Google Scholar is not very “user-friendly” as a bibliometric data collection tool at this point in time.
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
TLDR
A case study comparing citations found in Scopus and Google Scholar with those found in Web of Science for items published by two Library and Information Science full-time faculty members and a brief overview of a prototype system called CiteSearch, which analyzes combined data from multiple citation databases to produce citation-based quality evaluation measures.
Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus
TLDR
Comparing the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations shows that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.
Google Scholar versions: do more versions of an article mean greater impact?
TLDR
Investigating GS versions as an alternative source for a scholarly article to break new ground in understanding the various versions GS indexes, correlations between the number of GS versions and citation counts, and the value of institutional repositories for increasing scholarly impact.
Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar
TLDR
Three empirical methods are presented, apply and discussed: an external estimate based on empirical studies of Google Scholar coverage, and two internal estimate methods based on direct, empty and absurd queries, respectively, which place the estimated size of Google scholar at around 160–165 million documents.
Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis
TLDR
It is argued that these metrics provide additional advantages over the JIF and that the free availability of GS allows for a democratization of citation analysis as it provides every academic access to citation data regardless of their institution's financial means.
Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines
TLDR
An important corollary from this study is that Google Scholar’s wider coverage of Open Access (OA) web documents is likely to give a boost to the impact of OA research and the OA movement.
The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web
TLDR
The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, and shows that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly.
...
...