[Sigmetrics] Bibliometrics & bibliometricians in Google Scholar Citations and ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, Twitter

[Bornmann, Lutz]

Dear Emilio,

Thank you for this interesting resource!

However, could you please explain the data for Gene Garfield in more detail? There is an asterisk at his name, but I could not find further information. How is it possible that Gene has a GS h index of only 55, but a WoS h index of 153?

Many thanks!

Lutz

>-----Original Message-----
>From: SIGMETRICS [mailto:sigmetrics-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of Emilio
>Delgado López-Cózar
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:27 AM
>To: SIGMETRICS
>Subject: [Sigmetrics] Bibliometrics & bibliometricians in Google Scholar
>Citations and ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley, Twitter
>
>In keeping with the research line the EC3 Research Group began several
>years ago aimed at unravelling the inner depths of Google Scholar and
>testing its capabilities as a tool for scientific evaluation, this time
>we have turned our efforts to finding new uses for Google Scholar
>Citations (GSC). Based on the information available on every GSC public
>profile, a procedure has been developed to collect data from the
>scientists working on a given field of study, and to aggregate that data
>in order to present metrics at various levels: authors, documents,
>journals, and book publishers. Thus, GSC data would presumably allow us
>to present a picture of the history and scientific communication
>patterns of a discipline. In order to explore the feasibility of this
>project, we decided to select the field of Bibliometrics,
>Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics as our test
>subject.
>
>Once we’ve seen the picture of the discipline that can be observed
>through the data available in GSC, we also want to compare it to its
>counterparts in other academic web services, like ResearcherID, a
>researcher identification system launched by Thomson Reuters, mainly
>built upon data from Web of Science (which has been and still is the
>go-to source for many researchers in the field of research evaluation),
>and other profiling services which have arisen in the wake of the Web
>2.0 movement: ResearchGate, an academic social network, and Mendeley, a
>social reference manager which also offers profiling features. These are
>the most widely known tools worldwide for academic profiling . In
>addition, we also include the links to the authors' homepages (the first
>tool researchers used to showcase their scientific activities on the
>Web), and Twitter, the popular microblogging site, in order to learn how
>much presence bibliometricians have in this platform and the kind of
>communication activities in which they take part there.
>
>28 different indicators from 813 authors are displayed. The data is
>presented "as is": no filtering or cleaning of the data has been carried
>out. From the ranking of 813 bibliometricians who have made their Google
>Scholar Citations profile public, and the top 1057 most cited documents
>in those profiles, two additional rankings have been developed: a
>journal ranking, and an publisher ranking  according to the number of
>citations received..
>
>In short, our aim is to present a multifaceted and integral perspective
>of the discipline, as well as to provide the opportunity for an easy and
>intuitive comparison of these products and the reflections of scientific
>activity each of them portrays. In addition, we also want to bring
>attention to the new platforms that are offering scientific performance
>metrics and look into what their meaning could be. With this step, we
>enter the altmetrics conversation, but with a different approach: we do
>it from the individuals' perspective, and not only from the perspective
>of the documents they publish. In short, to notice what these tools
>really measure while applying it precisely to those who measure
>
>We are currently on an analysis of the data displayed in this product,
>which will be presented shortly in a working paper.
>
>The product is accessible from:
>
>http://www.scholar-mirrors.infoec3.es/
>
>Thank you, and I hope you find it of interest,
>
>Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
>EC3 Research Group: Evaluación de la Ciencia y de la Comunicación
>Científica
>Facultad de Comunicación y Documentación
>Universidad de Granada
>http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=es&user=kyTHOh0AAAAJ
>
>Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus (Cicerón, De officiis. A. 451...)
>Contra data non argumenta
>A fructibus eorum cognoscitis eos (San Mateo 7, 16
>
>_______________________________________________
>SIGMETRICS mailing list
>SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org
>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics