12 dic. 2014

Los autores españoles de Biblioteconomía y Documentación según Google Scholar Citations

Lista de los autores españoles que publican en
 Biblioteconomía y Documentación según Google Scholar Citations 
15-12-2014


Autor Institución Citas
Félix de Moya Anegón CSIC 4401
Ismael Rafols UPV 2351
Victor Herrero-Solana UGR 2252
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent UV 1974
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar UGR 1822
Isidro F. Aguillo CSIC 1795
Lluís Codina UPF 1458
Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez CSIC 1408
Evaristo Jimenez-Contreras UGR 1379
Benjamín Vargas-Quesada UGR 1345
Yusef Hassan Montero nosolousabilidad 1154
María Pinto Molina UGR 1097
José Luis Ortega CSIC 989
José Antonio Cordón García USAL 972
Daniel Torres-Salinas UNAV/UGR 962
José Antonio Merlo Vega USAL 937
José-Antonio Gómez-Hernández UM 935
Elias Sanz-Casado UC3M 911
Ernest Abadal UB 825
José A. Moreiro UC3M 823
Elena Corera-Álvarez CSIC 789
Rodrigo Costas CWTS 782
Francisco Javier García Marco UNIZAR 742
Rafael Ruiz-Perez UGR 731
Lluis Anglada CSUC 654
Julio Alonso Arevalo USAL 632
Elea Giménez-Toledo CSIC 591
Jesús Tramullas UNIZAR 590
Mari-Carmen Marcos UPF 567
Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo UV 550
Ángel Borrego UB 530
Antonio González Molina UGR 452
J. Carlos Fernández-Molina UGR 438
Imma Subirats-Coll FAO 433
Eduardo Peis UGR 425
Eva Méndez UC3M 421
Núria Ferran Ferrer UOC 418
Cristóbal Urbano UB 414
Raquel Gómez-Díaz USAL 410
Jorge Morato UC3M 407
Remedios Melero CSIC 389
Jose Manuel Barrueco UV 383
José Manuel Estrada Lorenzo Portal Salud Com. Madrid 378
Virginia Ortiz-Repiso UC3M 374
Pedro López López UCM 367
Josep-Manuel Rodríguez-Gairín UB 365
Antonio Pulgarin UNEX 364
Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo UGR 351
Isidoro Gil-Leiva UM 343
Cristòfol Rovira UPF 340
Carmen Galvez UGR 327
Miguel Villamon UV 327
Jose R. Pérez Agüera UCM 325
Pablo Lara-Navarra UOC 325
Javier Guallar UB 324
Miguel Angel Marzal Garcia-Quismondo UC3M 315
Ana M. Muñoz-Muñoz UGR 313
Francisco Jesus Martin Fernandez UGR 310
Pedro Hipola UGR 309
Tomas Saorin UM 288
J. Carlos García-Zorita UC3M 282
María-Luisa Alvite Díez UNILEON 278
Daniela De Filippo UC3M 272
Carlos Olmeda-Gomez UC3M 263
Maria Francisca Abad UV 263
Luis Rodríguez-Yunta CSIC 260
Antonia Ferrer-Sapena UPV 251
Jose G. Moreno-Torres UGR 251
Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez UC3M 248
Rafael Pedraza-Jimenez UPF 248
Pablo Dorta-González ULPGC 247
María-Dolores Olvera-Lobo UGR 244
Jose A. Senso UGR 243
Inmaculada José Martínez Martínez UM 239
Natalia Arroyo Fund. GSR 239
Tomàs Baiget EPI 234
Aurora González-Teruel UV 218
Sonia Sanchez-Cuadrado UC3M 205
Felipe Zapico-Alonso UNEX 203
Fernanda Peset UPV 200
Nicolás Robinson-García UGR 194
Carolina Navarro Molina UV 193
Juan Antonio Pastor Sánchez UM 191
José Vicente Rodríguez Muñoz UM 189
Jose M. Morales-del-Castillo UGR 188
Miquel Termens UB 186
Francisco-Javier Martinez-Mendez UM 185
Maria Luisa Lascurain UC3M 184
Mario Pérez-Montoro UB 183
Máxima Bolaños-Pizarro UV 183
Javier Lopez-Gijon UGR 181
Aurora Cuevas-Cerveró UCM 177
José Antonio Frías USAL 176
Carlos Benito Amat UPV 175
David Rodríguez Mateos UC3M 175
Jorge Caldera-Serrano UNEX 170
Felix del Valle UCM 148
Nieves González Fernández-Villavicencio UPO 148
Alfons González Quesada UAB 141
Xavier Agenjo Fund. Ignacio Larramendi 141
Mª Antonia Ovalle Perandones UC3M 139
Carlos González Guitián Sergas 137
Ana Pérez López UGR 134
Helena Martín-Rodero USAL 134
Juan Carlos Marcos Recio UCM 129
Francisco Javier García Gómez UM 128
Andreu Sulé UB 124
Enrique Orduna-Malea UPV 121
Michela Montesi UCM 121
Gema Bueno de la Fuente UC3M 120
David Carabantes Alarcón UCM 119
Izaskun Lacunza FECYT 118
Antonio Muñoz-Cañavate UNEX 117
Jorge Franganillo UB 116
Jorge Serrano Cobos UPV 116
Jordi Ardanuy UB 115
Mireia Ribera UB 115
María Marsá UNILEON 114
Natalia Papí Gálvez UA 113
Nancy Diana Gomez UC3M 112
Elisa Garcia-Morales INFOAREA 106
Ciro Llueca UB 103
Joaquín Rodríguez López futurosdellibro 102
Jose María Gómez-Sancho UNIZAR 101
Alexandre Lopez-Borrull UOC 100
Josep Vives-Gràcia GENCAT 98
Marina Losada UPF 98
Francisca Hernández Carrascal DIGIBIS 97
Tony Hernández-Pérez UC3M 96
Ana Ríos Hilario USAL 95
Rodrigo Sánchez Jiménez UCM 87
Pilar Gutiérrez Arenas UCO 82
Teresa Agirreazaldegi-Berriozabal EHU 81
Angeles Maldonado CSIC 78
Antonio Malalana Ureña CEU 78
Elena Primo-Peña ISCII 77
Rosana López Carreño UM 77
Lluís Rius Alcaraz UOC 74
Vicent Gimenez Chornet UPV 70
Marta Somoza-Fernández UB 68
Rafael Repiso UNIR 68
Fernando Juárez Urquijo Muskiz 67
Pedro Rueda-Ramírez UB 67
Amadeu Pons i Serra UB 64
Amalia Mas Bleda CSIC 62
Javier Leiva-Aguilera Catorze 62
Antonio Sánchez González UHU 60
Pilar Cid-Leal UAB 60
Mercedes Fernández Valladares UCM 58
Maribel Dominguez UAH 56
Miquel Codina UPC 55
Isabel Escalona UNEX 54
Llorenç Arguimbau IEC 53
Blanca San Jose Montano Portal Salud Com. Madrid 52
Lourdes Castillo UV 49
Fatima Pastor-Ruiz EHU 48
Vicent Falomir Delcampo UJI 48
Valeria Molteni SJSU 45
Paco López Hernández UC3M 40
Alfonso Ibáñez Línea Directa 39
Antonio Calderón-Rehecho UCM 39
Jorge Mañana Rodríguez CSIC 39
Yusnelkis Milanes-Guisado Junta de Andalucía 39
Gonzalo Mochon Bezares UC3M 38
María Jesús Colmenero Ruiz UC3M 38
Tránsito Ferreras Fernández USAL 36
Jose Morillo-Velarde Serrano CEU 35
Leticia Barrionuevo UNILEON 35
Marta Vázquez Vázquez USAL 35
Martinez Pestaña UC3M 32
Ana María González García UC3M 31
Ángeles López Hernández US 31
Ricard Monistrol DIFUCOM 29
Agustin Torreblanca López MINHAP 28
Diego Marcos Cartagena UGR 27
Antonio Eleazar Serrano López UC3M 26
María Belén Jaén Casquero ISCII 26
Javier Perez Iglesias UCM 24
Milagros Ronco EHU 24
Ricard de la Vega CSUC 24
Silvia Sunyer-Lázaro UPC 24
Sonia González Molina UJI 24
David Gomez Dominguez Junta de Andalucía 23
Josefa Gallego Lorenzo UNILEON 23
Rafael Olivares UGR 23
Alvaro Roldán López ISCII 22
Araceli García USAL 22
Irene López Navarro CSIC 20
Ricardo González Castrillo URJC 20
Julián Marquina baratz 19
Victor Manuel Moya Ruiz Telefónica 19
Juan José Generelo Lanaspa Gobierno de Aragón 18
Miguel Ángel Sánchez Herrador Junta de Andalucía 18
Elisa Legerén UGR 16
Inmaculada Ribes-Llopes UPV 16
J. Tomás Nogales UC3M 15
Rocio Serrano-Vicente UNAV 15
Alexis Moreno-Pulido UNED 14
María Olaran Olarán 14
María Victoria Játiva Miralles UA 14
Natalia Sastre-Miralles UPV 14
Oscar Lilao-Franca USAL 14
Anna Nicolau Payàs Biblioteca Nacional de Catalunya 13
Juan-Antonio Barrera-Gómez US 13
Kebi Jimenez Rodríguez EHU 13
Ramon J. Pujades i Bataller MECD 13
Antonio-Paulo Ubieto UNIZAR 12
Francisca Pulgar Vernalte EJ-GV 12
Joan-Isidre Badell UPF 12
Gerardo Marraud UVIGO 11
Juan Manuel Ayllón Millán UGR 11
Marta Abarca Villoldo UPV 11
Miguel Ángel del Prado Martínez CEPYME Aragón 11
Paloma Alfaro Torres UCLM 11
Ramon Voces-Merayo UOC 11
Raquel Vallés-Navarro UPV 11
Francisco Rubio UPV 10
María del Carmen Rodríguez López UNILEON 10
Raquel Martínez Sanz UVA 10
Víctor Cámara Bados UCM 10
Alberto Martín-Martín UGR 9
JA Martínez-Morilla ULPGC 9
José Antonio Sánchez Suárez ULPGC 9
Antonio J. Gómez-Núñez innovatec 8
Antonio Sanchez de Mora MECD 8
Fernando Martín Rodríguez UBU 8
Juan José Prieto Gutiérrez UCM 8
Sofía Arguis Molina Gobierno de Aragón 8
Sonia Martin-Castilla USAL 8
Consuelo Martín Vega UGR 7
Javier Gómez Castaño UA 7
Andres Felipe Echavarría Ramírez N/D 6
Anna Casaldaliga UPF 6
Carmen Aldehuela Serra UAL 6
Enrique Muriel-Torrado CETIEX 6
José Ángel Maestro Cano UPV 6
Josefina Servan Corchero UNEX 6
Susana Corullón UCM 6
Braulio Vázquez Campos MECD 5
Cecilia Jaques UPF 5
Enrique de la Fuente-Gutiérrez UGR 5
Fernando Sánchez Pita USAL 5
Florencio Nunez FECYT 5
Jesús Bustamante-Díaz HEYZEUS 5
María Ángeles Morales Cáceres UMA 5
Pilar Grande González UVA 5
Pilar Toro Sánchez-Blanco Junta de Andalucía 5
Rafael Ibáñez Hernández Ayto. de Burgos 5
Isabel Sempere USC 4
Juan Medino Muñoz Portal Salud Com. Madrid 4
Margarita Becedas USAL 4
Nieves Lorenzo-Escolar EHU 4
Soledad Vicente Rosillo URJC 4
Toni Prieto UPC 4
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes CSIC 3
Boton-Muñoz MPM UCO 3
Carmen Rodriguez Otero Sergas 3
David Aznar-Lafont UNAV 3
Diego Martín-Campo USAL 3
Elvira Ordoñez Cocovi US 3
Félix Pintado Pico ULPGC 3
MA Codina Canet MECD 3
Maria R. Osuna Alarcón USAL 3
Arantxa Iturbide UNAV 2
Belen Garcia-Delgado UEM 2
Blanca Salom Carrasco UV 2
Carlos Martín López snoticias 2
Elena Osorio UNILEON 2
Eva Calatrava Barrio UPV 2
María Teresa García Ballesteros Junta de Andalucía 2
Ana Doñate Cifuentes CEU 1
Ana Jiménez Royo CSIC 1
Carlos Calvo Muñoz UEM 1
Catalina Guzmán-Pérez UCO 1
Ester Badia UPC 1
Fernando Rodríguez Junco ULL 1
Javier Alonso MECD 1
Jon Zabala Vázquez UCM 1
José Carlos Morillo Moreno UHU 1
Luis-María Fernandez-Martínez EHU 1
Maribel Manzano García UPSA 1
Rosario Guiard-Abascal UM 1
Ana Baíllo Almuzara CSIC 0
Ana Carrillo-Pozas Biblioteca Nacional de España 0
Ángel Delgado UPO 0
Angelica-Sara Zapatero-Lourinho UCM 0
Antonia María Fernández Luque Junta de Andalucía 0
Antonio Casado Poyales UCLM 0
Beatriz Tejada Carrasco UNED 0
Begoña Gimeno Arlanzón UNIZAR 0
Belén Novoa-García UPCOMILLAS 0
C Ruiz de Villegas UCO 0
Carme Julià-Gil UJI 0
Consuelo Gallardo Izquierdo COP 0
Dolores Marset-López UA 0
Elvira Curiel-Marín UGR 0
Elvira Sanchis GVA 0
Fernanda Garzón-Farinós UCV 0
Gemma Armengol Roca FPHAG 0
Gloria Lence CSIC 0
Jordi García Gozálvez UJI 0
José Antonio Moral-Muñoz UGR 0
Josefa Romero Martinez UM 0
Laura Donadeo Navalón CSIC 0
Lidia París Folch UJI 0
Luis Díaz del Río Romero UC3M 0
Mª Begoña Gomez Rivero UBU 0
Manuel Jose Villegas Lirola Níjar 0
Manuel Ruiz de Luzuriaga UNAVARRA 0
María del Carmen Martín-Marichal ULPGC 0
María Luisa González Ayala ULL 0
Maria Luz de andres Portal Salud Castilla y León 0
Maria-Ángeles Sánchez-Beato-Espiau UCLM 0
Marta Abad López USC 0
Miguel-Ángel Vera-Baceta UM 0
Pablo García Hernández UC3M 0
Paz Ganan UCM 0
Reyes Rojas García US 0
Rosa Gómez-Albiñana UJI 0
Salomé Eslava Ochoa UNAV 0
Víctor Macías-Alemán ULPGC 0

31 oct. 2014

The most cited documents in Google Scholar & Web of Science: two sides of the same coin

As one more example of those unlikely but still curiously recurrent cases of two different teams simultaneously studying the same research problem, two studies on highly cited documents have been released this week with barely a few hours of difference between them. One of them was published by Van Noorden, Maher & Nuzzo in Nature. The other one was submitted by Martín, Ayllón, Orduña & Delgado López-Cózar to the arXiv repository.


The first one studies the top 100 most cited articles in Web of Science on the ocassion of the 50th anniversary of the Science Citation Index (SCI), although it also offers an alternative list containing the top 100 most cited documents in Google Scholar. Additionally, the authors comment many of these articles individually and their contribution to the advancement of science.
Conversely, the second study, carried out in the ocassion of Google Scholar's 10th anniversary,  takes a different approach to the same issue, analysing the highly cited documents in Google Scholar (a sample of 64,000 documents published between 1950 and 2013). Among other things, we compare the ranking obtained from Google Scholar data to the most cited documents in Web of Science.
This unique event has an interesting side effect, since it allows us to compare and verify the validity of the methodologies used and the results reached in both studies.

Our conclusion is that Google Scholar presents a different view to the one we were used to after many years using the Web of Science (50% of the highly cited documents in GS are not indexed in WoS). 

However, if we analyse only those documents that are indexed both in Google Scholar and the Web of Science (32,680 documents in our sample), Google Scholar presents a very similar portrait of the world of research to the one offered in Web of Science, with a significant difference: 91.6% of the documents have received more citations in GS than in WoS. Only 3,079 documents (9.4%) have more citations according to WoS than in GS. Furthermore, the average number of citations per document in GS is 1.79, and 1.08 in WoS, which means that on average, GS has 70% more citations per document than WoS.

Our recommendation: read, and compare

15 oct. 2014

Academic Search Engines: A quantitative outlook, by José Luis Ortega


The recently published book entitled “Academic Search Engines: a quantitative outlook“ (Chandos Publishing) is the first monograph that deals in a joint, general, and exhaustive manner, with the topic of Academic Search Engines. And this makes itself immensely valuable. With this book we’ll have a complete view of the past, present and even the future of the tools whose aim is to improve the search and discovery of scientific information on the Web. The novelty of this work dwells both in the originality of the subject, and in the perspective from which it is approached: in a quantitative manner, instead of mere qualitative.

Reading this book we’ll learn the details of not only all the features, search functionalities, and the specifics of the information retrieval techniques used by these academic search engines, but also their coverage (the sources from which they feed, the number of documents that they cover and their typologies). In short, all the essential and necessary information to assess the quality of all these information systems, namely:

  • the thoroughness and accuracy of their contents,
  • the effectiveness of the tools used to retrieve and extract content
  • the quantity, variety and quality of the results that they display.
The products that the book analyses are the following:


Each one of these academic search engines is subjected to a detailed analysis in its own chapter of the book, except the last three (BASE, Q-Sensei Scholar, WorlWideScience), which are examined together. The analysis is not merely descriptive, for the commentary is both incisive and critical, which allows the reader to quickly discern the strengths and weaknesses of each search engine.

After reading each one of these chapters, the conclusion is clear: academic search engines are so different in concept, purpose, and design, and deliver very different features and results, to the point that they cannot be easily compared.

Nonetheless, without any doubt, the most suggestive chapter is paradoxically the last one, where the author executes a comparative analysis of all search engines whose goal - in the author’s own words - is none other than “to analyze together these systems from different perspectives which contribute to have a multilayer view on the performance of each search service. In this way, this comparative approach would explain in a different form the advantages and shortcomings of each search engine in relation with the other ones, which would stress the significance of these facets. With that, it is not intended to do a competitive process to select the best search engine for scientific information, but to contextualize the performance of these search tools in relation with the other ones as a way to describe its advantages or to mark their weakness.”

Summarizing, these are the results of the comparative analysis:


  • Google Scholar is the most exhaustive and complete academic search engine since it presents a deep crawling of the academic Web with a wide range of sources. And the duplicate management is rather satisfactory as well.
  • According to the source types, Google Scholar is the search engine that feeds from a wider range of sources.
  • From a qualitative point of view, Microsoft Academic Search has proved to be the best profiling tool, because the structure of the entire site is built around profiles at different aggregated levels.
  • If the search interfaces are observed, BASE and Scirus are the services that produce better performance, whereas AMiner could be considered the worst engine in this aspect.
  • According to their exporting features, BASE is still the best solution according to the number of different formats, although WorldWideScience and CiteSeerx are the tools allowing a larger number of records to download.

As it occurs in all endeavours of life, “nobody is perfect”, and that’s why it is not surprising this comparative analysis hasn’t been able to discover the ideal and perfect search engine: all of them stand out at least in one aspect, and at the same time, all of them are outperformed by the rest in many other aspects. As the author appropriately concluded, “As it has been seen throughout this benchmarking exercise, it has not been possible to appreciate what is the best system because it depends of each user’s needs.”

The principal problem of this book is that problem which affects all books that deal with technological topics, especially those discussing individual software or hardware products: obsolescence. Since technology is constantly changing and products are updated incessantly, it may happen that a product accessible at the time the book is being written (or a version of the product analysed) greatly differs from the time when the book is published, even to the point of being unrecognisable each other. Therefore, it may happen that a product analysed in a book is already dead by the time the book is released (such as Scirus), or that it is about to (Microsoft Academic Search). This, however, doesn’t diminish the interest of the book in the slightest, since from a scientific point of view, it is essential to know the contributions and solutions that every product has implemented to solve the problem of the search, retrieval and evaluation of scientific information on the Web.


Portrait of Google Scholar and its derivative products Scholar Metrics & Scholar Citations

Of special interest to our blog is the empirical analysis the author carried out on Google Scholar and its derivative products Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations. Apart from describing in detail how the search engine works, the most relevant information, from our point of view, is the empirical data about its coverage:
  • Google Scholar contains 109.3 millions of document, from which 94.74 millions (86.7%) would correspond to scientific documents and a 14.5 (13.2%) millions of Courts opinions, or Case laws.
  • The distribution of publications over time is quite irregular, marked by peaks and valleys. These results suggest a slow increase rate with important freshness problems.
  • Apart from legal documents, the dominant document type in GS is the “academic paper” (although the text doesn’t clarify it, we assume it is referring to journal papers), which represents 46.8% (44.4 million documents), followed by patents (19.6%; 18.55 million), and books (12.1%; 11.46 million). Moreover, the 21.1% of documents are included in a category that is not really a document type (citations), but just a bibliographic reference to a document that GS hasn’t been able to locate on the Web, only in the reference lists of other documents. It could be a book, a book chapter, a report, a journal paper, conference proceedings… Therefore, there is an elevated fraction of documents whose typology we still ignore.
  • Regarding the sources from which GS extracts information, it is should be noted that 58.8% of the documents in GS come from publishers such as SpringerLink or ScienceDirect, 8.2% from Google Patents and Google Books, 28.1% corresponds to open access repositories (thematic repositories 16.9%; institutional repositories 11.8%) and finally the 4.7% from bibliographic services. However, it is worth remembering that these data have been obtained through queries that used the “site:” query command, which is not entirely reliable since it only offers approximate hit counts and not an exact number of documents. Also, it is only taking into account the primary versions of the documents, and not the rest of the versions, which may be stored in a great variety of hosts.
  • Google Scholar’s search system shows serious inconsistencies that put the reliability of the search engine into question, especially about the estimated number of results displayed in the queries, and the limitation of 1,000 results per query.
  • Google Scholar has significantly improved over time the management of duplicates, and corrected document parsing and erroneous citation counting and assignation.
  • In December 2013, it is estimated that Google Scholar Citations contained 350,000 author profiles, with 18.3 millions of papers assigned to these profiles.
  • The countries with a higher presence of author pages are the United States (24.8%), the United Kingdom (6.4%) and Brazil (5.3%).
  • Three of the organizations with more profiles are from Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo (1.3%), Universidade Estadual Paulista (0.6%) and Universidade Estadual de Campinas (0.4%). After these, the author finds the most usual organizations in research rankings, such as the University of Michigan (0.5%), Harvard University (0.4%) and the University of Washington (0.4%).
  • As regards the thematic coverage inside Google Scholar Citations, an overwhelming majority of the author profiles belong to researchers in the area of Computer Science. It is surprising the absence of profiles with labels related to relevant scientific areas such as Medicine, Chemistry and Physics.
  • It is estimated that Google Scholar Metrics contained nearly 30,000 journals at the end of 2012.


After this exhaustive quantitative overview of Google Scholar and its derivative products, we want to point out some discrepancies and contradictory data with the results previously presented by our research group (EC3 Bibliography). These differences, from a technical and methodological point of view, open a fascinating scientific debate, and they demonstrate one more time the difficulty of making size estimations for tools with such an opaque and dynamic nature as these search engines.


There is only one thing to question ourselves: What is the future that awaits to these search engines? A search engine, regardless of all its sophisticated tools for searching scientific information, is designed to be used. Do we have data about the past and present use of these search engines? Trying to zero in on this issue, we have tried to determine which are the most popular academic search engines according to users’ queries, as measured by Google Trends. We have generated the charts both including Google Scholar and leaving it out, to be able to observe the differences. The results speak for themselves: there is ONE search engine above all the rest, which in practice becomes irrelevant today.


To sum up, and going back to the study that is the object of this review, we must conclude as we started: we are facing an essential reference work in the history of the search for scientific information on the Web in general, and specifically on the academic search engines.