Google Académico en su apogeo. ¿Existen disciplinas todavía fuera de su alcance? Estudio de cobertura en el área de Arquitectura

Yáñez-Arca, Marcos Google Académico en su apogeo. ¿Existen disciplinas todavía fuera de su alcance? Estudio de cobertura en el área de Arquitectura., 2014 Trabajo Fin de Máster thesis, Universidade da Coruña. [Thesis]

TFM_Marcos_Yañez.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (3MB) | Preview

English abstract

Firstly, an analysis is carried out on the methodology used in more than fifty coverage studies of the scientific search engine Google Academic (GA). To this end, a classification of the different approaches is presented and the main problems of application to the scientific search engine are detected. Based on the conclusions obtained, a methodological proposal is elaborated, the result of which is an enriched version of the work of Neuhaus et al. (2006). Subsequently, the state of the question on the extension and depth of the GA index for the different scientific areas is presented. In the second part of the work, an analysis of coverage in the area of Architecture is carried out based on the proposed methodology. For this purpose, the Avery database is used as a reference. As a result, GA was found to have very low - but increasing - coverage rates for the Architecture area in the three periods studied: 19.53% (1950-1989), 30.99% (1990-2009) and 36.03% (2010-2014). Low quality records were also found, as well as a significant coverage imbalance by country. Causes and future trends are discussed.

Spanish abstract

Primeramente, se lleva a cabo un análisis sobre la metodología utilizada en más de medio centenar de estudios de cobertura del buscador científico Google Académico (GA). Para ello, se presenta una clasificación de los distintos enfoques y se detectan los principales problemas de aplicación sobre el buscador científico. En base a las conclusiones obtenidas se elabora una propuesta metodológica, cuyo resultado es una versión enriquecida del trabajo de Neuhaus et al. (2006). Posteriormente, se expone el estado de la cuestión sobre la extensión y profundidad del índice de GA para las distintas áreas científicas. En la segunda parte del trabajo se realiza un análisis de cobertura en el área de Arquitectura a partir de la metodología propuesta. Para ello se toma como referencia la base de datos Avery. Como resultado, se encontró que GA presenta tasas de cobertura muy bajas – aunque crecientes – para el área de Arquitectura en los tres períodos estudiados: 19,53% (1950-1989), 30,99% (1990-2009) y 36,03% (2010-2014). También se encontró una baja calidad de los registros, así como un desequilibrio de cobertura importante por países. Se discuten las causas y las posibles tendencias futuras.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: Estudios de cobertura; Google Académico; Arquitectura; Análisis de citas; Metodología; Coverage studies; Google Academic; Architecture; Citation analysis; Methodology
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion.
Depositing user: Marcos Yáñez
Date deposited: 19 Oct 2019 09:02
Last modified: 19 Oct 2019 09:02


Adamick, J., & Reznik-Zellen, R. (2010). Representation and Recognition of Subject Repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 16(9/10). doi:10.1045/september2010-adamick

Arlitsch, K., & O’Brien, P. S. (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: Addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google Scholar. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 60–81. Recuperado de

Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the «Introduction to informetrics» indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495–506.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52.

Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012). Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370-379. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002

Boeker, M., Vach, W., & Motschall, E. (2013). Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 131. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-131

Bohannon, J. (2014). Google Scholar Wins Raves—But Can It Be Trusted? Science, 343(6166), 14–14.

Bosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Recuperado a partir de

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M., & Anderson, P. F. (2013). The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in. Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1-9. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-115

Brantley, P. (3 de julio de 2007). Science Direct-ly into Google. TOC O’Reilly. Recuperado a partir de

Brewerton, A. (2012). New ways of supporting researchers. CILIP Update, (February). Recuperado a partir de

Burright, M. (2006). Google Scholar: Science & Technology. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Winter). Recuperado a partir de

Chen, X. (2010a). The declining value of subscription-based abstracting and indexing services in the new knowledge dissemination era. Serials Review, 36(2), 79–85.

Chen, X. (2010b). Google Scholar’s Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221-226. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002

Christianson, M. (2007). Ecology articles in Google Scholar: levels of access to articles in core journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 49. Recuperado a partir de

Cusker, J. (2013). Elsevier Compendex and Google Scholar: A Quantitative Comparison of Two Resources for Engineering Research and an Update to Prior Comparisons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 241-243. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.02.001

De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007

Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(3), 446-454. doi:10.1002/asi.23056

Dobbs, D. (12 de Abril de 2013). When the rebel alliance sells out. The New Yorker. Recuperado a partir de

Forsyth, A. (2007). The rise of the nerds? Interdisciplinary research and architecture. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 1(3), 177–182.

Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). Gaga over Google? Scholar in the social sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8), 42–45.

Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 13(1), 7.

Giustini, D., & Barsky, E. (2005). A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 26(3), 85–89.

Giustini, D., & Boulos, M. N. K. (2013). Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online journal of public health informatics, 5(2), 214.

Gray, J. E., Hamilton, M. C., Hauser, A., Janz, M. M., Peters, J. P., & Taggart, F. (2012, Summer). Scholarish: Google Scholar and its Value to the Sciences. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, (70), 1-3.

Harzing, A.-W., & Van Der Wal, R. (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(1), 41–46.

Harzing, A.-W. (2011). The Publish or Perish Book: Your guide to effective and responsable citation analysis. Melbourne (Australia): Tarma Software Research.

Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057-1075. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7

Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C. (2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College & Research Libraries, 70(3), 227–234.

Inger, S., & Gardner, T. (2012). How Readers Discover Content in Scholarly Journals. Renew Training.

Jacsó, P. (2005a). As we may search-Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. CURRENT SCIENCE-BANGALORE-, 89(9), 1537. Recuperado de

Jacsó, P. (2005b). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online information review, 29(2), 208–214. Recuperado de

Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online information review, 30(3), 297–309.

Jacsó, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175–191.

Jones, D. Y. (2005). Biology article retrieval from various databases: making good choices with limited resources. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 44. Recuperado a partir de

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294.

Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & 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(11), 2147–2164.

Kreisman, R. (2013). Thomson Ruters-Google Scholar Linkage Offers Big Win for STM Users and Publishers. Outsell. Recuperado a partir de

Lewandowski, D. (2010). Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science. Online Information Review, 34(2), 250–262.

Levine-Clark, M., & Kraus, J. (2007). Finding chemistry information using Google Scholar: a comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service. Science & technology libraries, 27(4), 3–17.

Mayr, P., & Walter, A.-K. (2008). Studying journal coverage in Google Scholar. Journal of Library Administration, 47(1-2), 81–99.

Meho, L. I., & 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(13), 2105–2125.

Meier, J. J., & Conkling, T. W. (2008). Google Scholar’s coverage of the engineering literature: An empirical study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 196–201.

Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. A. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625.

Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.

Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001

Notess, G. R. (2005). Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online, (Jul/Aug). Recuperado a partir de

Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllon, J. M., Martin-Martin, A., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2014). Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead? arXiv preprint. Recuperado a partir de

Pulgarín Guerrero, A. (2007). Medidas del solapamiento en tres bases de datos con información sobre ingeniería. Anales de documentación, (10), 335-344.

Ramos Carranza, A., & Añón Abajas, R. M. (2012). La difusión como proyecto de investigación: revistas de investigación en proyectos arquitectónicos. En 4IAU 4a Jornadas Internacionales sobre Investigación en Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Valencia, 2011.

Rozear, H. M. (2009). Where Google Scholar stands on art: an evaluation of content coverage in online databases. Art Libraries Journal, 34(2), 21-25.

Salisbury, L., & Tekawade, A. (2006). Where Is Agricultural Economics and AgriBusiness Research Information Published and Indexed? A Comparison of Coverage in Web of Knowledge, CAB Abstracts, EconLit, and Google Scholar. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 7(2/3), 125-143. doi:10.1300/108v07n02̱10

Shultz, M. (2007). Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 95(4), 442.

Sorli, Á., & Mochón, G. (2012). Revistas españolas de arquitectura, ciencias de la construcción y urbanismo: visibilidad e internacionalidad. Recuperado a partir de

Sumner, N. (July 5-7). Developing the digital researcher. En ICICTE 2012 Proceedings. Rhodes, Greece. Recuperado a partir de

Technopolis Group. (2011). Review Architecture and the Built Environment TU/e and TU Delft. Recuperado a partir de

Torres-Salinas, D., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Estrategia para mejorar la difusión de los resultados de investigación con la Web 2.0. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 534–539.

Viñas, A., & Minobis, E. (2007). La evaluación de las revistas en la investigación en arquitectura y urbanismo. En XVIII Jornadas ABB: las publicaciones periódicas de arquitectura, construcción y urbanismo. León. Recuperado a partir de

Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information processing & management, 43(4), 1121–1132.

Walters, W. H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 5–24.

Walters, W. H. (2011). Comparative Recall and Precision of Simple and Expert Searches in Google Scholar and Eight Other Databases. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(4), 971-1006. doi:10.1353/pla.2011.0042


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item