CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Ranking journals: could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?

Open access
DELGADO‐LÓPEZ‐CÓZAR, Emilio, CABEZAS‐CLAVIJO, Álvaro·2013·Learned Publishing
DOI 10.1087/20130206
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports, and for the Scopus‐powered Scimago Journal Rank. A review of these bibliometric journal evaluation products is performed. We compare their main characteristics from different approaches: coverage, indexing policies, search and visualization, bibliometric indicators, results analysis options, economic cost, and differences in their ranking of journals. Despite its shortcomings, Google Scholar Metrics is a helpful tool for authors and editors in identifying core journals. As an increasingly useful tool for ranking scientific journals, it may also challenge established journals products.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1087/20130206

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]1. Harzing, A.-W. and Van der Wal, R. 2008. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8:, 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esep00076 · DOI
  2. [2]2. Jacsó, P. 2008. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review 32: 102114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]3. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2009. Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El Profesional de la información 18: 501-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03 · DOI
  4. [4]4. Sanni, S. and Zainab, A. 2011. Evaluating the influence of a medical journal using Google Scholar. Learned Publishing 24: 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110210 · DOI
  5. [6]6. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. and Wang, L. 2006. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical digital libraries 3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [7]7. Meho, L. and Yang, K. 2007. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58: 2105-2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]8. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A. and Pappas, G. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb Journal 22 : 338-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.079492LSF · DOI
  8. [9]9. Bar-Ilan, J. 2008. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 74: 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0080216-y · DOI
  9. [10]10. Bar-Ilan, J. 2010. Citations to the 'Introduction to informetrics' indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82: 495-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9 · DOI
  10. [11]11. Kulkarni, A., Aziz, B., Shams, I. and Busse, J. W. 2009. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general - medical journals. JAMA 302: 1092-1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · DOI
  11. [12]12. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A. and Daniel, H.-D. 2009. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, S. Journal of Informetrics 3: 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001 · DOI
  12. [13]13. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. and Rezaie, S. 2011. Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62: 2147-2164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21608 · DOI
  13. [14]14. De Groote, S. L. and Raszewski, R. 2012. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing outlook 60: 391-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007 · DOI
  14. [15]15. Costas, R. and Bordons, M. 2007. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics 1: 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001 · DOI
  15. [16]16. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2013. Google Scholar y el índice h en Biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica. Medicina Intensiva , in press.
  16. [17]17. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Profesional de la información 21: 419-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.jul.15 · DOI
  17. [19]19. Jacsó, P. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications: The software and content features of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review 36: 604-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521211254121 · DOI
  18. [20]20. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics updated: Now it begins to get serious. EC3 Working Papers 8. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/22439
  19. [21]21. Garfield, E. 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295: 90-93.
  20. [22]22. González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P. and Moya-Anegón, F. 2010. A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4: 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002 · DOI
  21. [24]24. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2012. Las revistas españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas en Google Scholar Metrics , ¿están todas las que son? EC3 Working Papers 2. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16892
  22. [25]25. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. 2012. ¿Es posible usar Google Scholar para evaluar a las revistas científicas nacionales en los ámbitos de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas? El caso de las revistas españolas. EC3 Working Papers 3. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16888
  23. [26]26. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Repiso-Caballero, R. 2012. Índice H de las revistas de Comunicación según Google Scholar Metrics (2007-2011). http://hdl.handle.net/10481/22483
  24. [27]27. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduña Malea, E., Marcos Cartagena, D., Jiménez Contreras, E. and Ruiz-Pérez, R. 2012. JOURNAL SCHOLAR: Una alternativa internacional, gratuita y de libre acceso para medir el impacto de las revistas de Arte, Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. EC3 Working Papers 5. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/20375
  25. [28]28. Google Scholar Metrics. 2012. Coverage of publications. http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#coverage (accessed 1 February 2013)
  26. [29]29. Ruiz-Pérez, R., Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2006. Criterios del Institute for Scientific Information para la selección de revistas - científicas. Su aplicación a las revistas españolas: metodología e indicadores. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 6: 401-424.
  27. [30]30. Scopus. 2013. Content selection http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopusin-detail/content-selection (accessed 25 January 2013) - Advice to journal editors and publishers: Securing accession for a
  28. [31]31. Scopus. 2012. journal to Scopus - http://files.sciverse.com/documents/pdf/Advice\_to\_journal\_editors\_and\_publi shers\_v2.pdf (accessed 1 February 2013)
  29. [32]32. Aguillo, I. F. 2012. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics 91: 343-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0110582-8 · DOI
  30. [34]34. Vaughan, L., and Shaw, D. 2007. A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics 74: 317-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0220-2 · DOI
  31. [36]36. Delgado-López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N. and Torres-Salinas, D. 2012. Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting. EC3 Working Papers 6. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638 · arXiv
  32. [37]37. Pudovkin, A. I. and Garfield, E. 2002. Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53: 1113-1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10153 · DOI
  33. [39]39. Journal Metrics Values . 2013. http://www.journalmetrics.com/values.php (accessed 1 February 2013)
  34. [41]41. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. and Chute, R. 2009. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PloS one 4: e6022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022 · DOI
  35. [42]42. Leydesdorff, L. 2009. How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 1327-1336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21024 · DOI
  36. [43]43. Elkins, M. R., Maher, C. G., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M. and Sherrington, C. 2010. Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics 85: 81-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192010-0262-0 · DOI
  37. [44]44. Jacsó, P. 2010. Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal and Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases. Online Information Review , 34: 642-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521011073034 · DOI
  38. [45]45. Torres-Salinas, D. and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2010. Introducción y estudio comparativo de los nuevos indicadores de citación sobre revistas científicas en Journal Citation Reports y Scopus. El profesional de la Información 19: 201-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2010.mar.12 · DOI
  39. [46]46. Sicilia, M.-A., Sánchez-Alonso, S. and García-Barriocanal, E. 2011. Comparing impact factors from two different citation databases: The case of Computer Science. Journal of Informetrics 5: 698-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.007 · DOI
  40. [47]47. Torres-Salinas, D., Delgado-López-Cózar, E. and Jiménez-Contreras, E. 2009. Rankings of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases : Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics 80: 761774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2113-9 · DOI
  41. [48]48. Vanclay, J. 2008. Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of informetrics 2: 326-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.002 · DOI
  42. [49]49. Harzing, A. and Wal, R. van der. 2009. A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 40-
  43. [46]46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20953 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DELGADO‐LÓPEZ‐CÓZAR, E., & CABEZAS‐CLAVIJO, Á.
Affiliations
Universidad de Granada Spain
Venue
Learned Publishing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-04
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
101-114
ISSN
  • 0953-1513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-4857
DOI
10.1087/20130206
OpenAlex
W2086951786
Cited by
107
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9
FWCI
11.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Learned Publishing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
Google Scholar Metrics, Journal Citation Reports, SCImago Journal Rank, journal rankings, journal evaluation, bibliometric indicators, core journals, Thomson Reuters, Scopus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review