Abstract

The aim of this study was to show the current state of scientific research regarding wine tourism, by comparing the platforms of scientific information WoS and Scopus and applying quantitative methods. For this purpose, a bibliometric study of the publications indexed in WoS and Scopus was conducted, analyzing the correlation between increases, coverage, overlap, dispersion and concentration of documents. During the search process, a set of 238 articles and 122 different journals were obtained. Based on the results of the comparative study, we conclude that WoS and Scopus databases differ in scope, data volume and coverage policies with a high degree of unique sources and articles, resulting both of them complementary and not mutually exclusive. Scopus covers the area of wine tourism better, by including a greater number of journals, papers and signatures.

Abstract

The emergence of massive open online course (MOOCs) has been a turning point for the academic world and, especially, in the design and provision of training courses in Higher Education. Now that the first moments of the information explosion have passed, a rigorous analysis of the effect of the movement in high-impact scientific world is needed in order to assess the state of the art and future lines of research. This study analyzes the impact of the MOOC movement in the form of scientific article during the birth and explosion period (2010-2013) in two of the most relevant databases: Journal Citation Reports (WoS) and Scopus (Scimago). We present, through a descriptive and quantitative methodology, the most significant bibliometric data according to citation index and database impact. Furthermore, with the use of a methodology based on social network analysis (SNA), an analysis of the article’s keyword co-occurrence is presented through graphs to determine the fields of study and research. The results show that both the number of articles published and the citations received in both databases present a medium-low significant impact, and the conceptual network of relationships in the abstracts and keywords does not reflect the current analysis developed in general educational media.

Abstract

Google Scholar Metrics' launch in April 2012, a new bibliometric tool for the evaluation of scientific journals by means of citation counting, has ended with the duopoly exerted by the Web of Science and Scopus databases. This paper aims at comparing the coverage of these three databases and the similarity their journal rankings may have. We selected a sample of journals from the field of Communication Studies indexed in the three databases. Data was recollected on 1720 November, 2012. 277 journals were identified to which we calculated their hindex and ranked them according to such indicator. Then, we analyzed the correlation between the rankings generated. Google Scholar Metrics dobles the coverage of the other databases, reducing the bias toward English language both; web of Science and Scopus have. Google Scholar Metrics shows higher hindex values (an average 47% higher than Scopus and 40% higher than Web of Science), allowing to better rank journals. We conclude that Google Scholar Metrics is a tool capable of identifying the main journals in Communication Studies offering results as reliable and valid as the ones Web of Science and Scopus show.

Abstract

Characteristics and economic data of the information market come from various sources and are somewhat mixed. Specific aspects and products discussed are the valuation of the global information market, corporate acquisitions, major scientific publishers, publishing markets (countries), cost of WoK and Scopus databases, revaluation of economic information since the 2008 crisis, journal price increases, open access market, evolution of computing costs (Moore’s Law) and major vendors.

Abstract

Bibliographic control by academic libraries is currently of major importance. We describe the problems that arise and the planning required in the collection, tracking and dissemination of publications by university researchers. Open access platforms can be used to disseminate publications data, interacting with institutional archives and the CV of each researcher. In addition, libraries can regularly review and unify researcher profiles in bibliographic databases, improving the researcher's h-index and assisting in the collection of bibliographic data. Finally, it is useful for academic libraries to participate in and disseminate the Orcid project's unique identifier for the authors.

Abstract

Google scholar citations, a system aimed at researchers, attempts to outline researchers’ bibliometric profile, providing citation indicators and the h-index. We review other tools designed to measure visibility and academic impact on the web, such as Microsoft academic search and the new initiatives grouped under the label altmetrics or alternative indicators. Finally, we discuss how the appearance of Google scholar citations and other products may affect the two major sources of bibliometric data, ISI Web of science and Scopus, and how this can influence the evaluation of scientific research.

Abstract

After a short historical perspective of bibliographic databases with citations, which allow bibliometric studies, the features of Google Scholar as a possible database for the same purpose are discussed. While Scholar is free and more comprehensive than WoS and Scopus, its use is not recommended for bibliometric analysis, especially for the evaluation of individuals and institutions.

Abstract

The number of Spanish journals indexed in the database Web of science is analyzed. It has grown from 44 in 2005 to 149 in 2009. Yet it seems that Spain is not adequately represented in relation to its scientific and publishing potential. The Spain presence in Scopus is considerably larger, with 223 journals.

Abstract

Google Scholar (GS) is a search engine that specializes in scientific information and in the identification of the citations that academic papers receive, making it a strong competitor for other citations indexes like Scopus and Web of Science. For this reason, several studies have attempted to evaluate its capacity as a bibliometric tool. Due to this interest, we present an introduction to its use. We discuss the following disadvantages: not all documents indexed in GS can be considered academic; it is not a transparent product because it offers no information on the sources covered; with respect to scientific journals, there is uneven coverage of the disciplines; its interface is too basic; there is an absolute lack of standardization in data; GS does not solve the citation problem; and, like Web of Science and Scopus, there are huge gaps in its coverage.

Abstract

The evaluation of scientific journals with bibliometric indicators has been dominated by the Impact factor since the 70s. However Thomson has recently included in the Journal Citation Reports the Eigen factor and the Article influence score. On the other hand Elsevier has included in Scopus the Source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) and the SCImago journal rank (SJR). In this paper we introduce and describe these indicators. Secondly, to study the similarities we analyze correlations of the traditional indicators and the new ones, detailing the results across 27 scientific fields. It was noted that some couples of indicators such as Eigen- Citations, Impact factor-ArticleScore, Impact factor–SJR and SJR-ArticleScore do correlate in many areas. Correlations showed different trends in Science and Social science; therefore, in the last section we discuss the need to take into account the scientific area when selecting an indicator.