Los repositorios en Google Scholar Metrics o ¿qué hace un tipo documental como tú en un lugar como ese?

摘要

We offer new arguments against the inclusion of repositories in the journal rankings presented in Google Scholar Metrics, along with empirical data warning against this contradictory situation. It is unreasonable to compare repositories, - which are just digital deposits with a wide (and multidisciplinary) thematic scope, created to preserve and disseminate a varied range of academic materials -with scientific journals- which aim at publishing exclusively research papers in a particular field of interest, selected according to a severe peer review process. But not just that, most surprisingly, from the most cited 160 papers included in the four top repositories according to Google Scholar Metrics (REPEC, SSRN, ArXiv, NBER), 95% are also published in journals and simultaneously included in the ranking. This takes us to the following question: Who should be given credit for the citations received in these papers, the journal where it was published or the repository where it was sent to? And which repository when the preprint was been deposited in several ones? We conclude by showing the lack of bibliographic control there is in Google Scholar Metrics.