Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adamick, J., & Reznik-Zellen, R. (2010). Trends in large-scale subject repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 16(11/12), 3.
Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8 .
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001 .
Bharat, K., & Broder, A. (1998). A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public Web search engines. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00127-5 .
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329 .
Brophy, J., & Bawden, D. (2005). Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources. Aslib Proceedings, 57, 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530510634235 .
Caragea, C., Wu, J., Ciobanu, A., Williams, K., Fernández-Ramírez, J., Chen, H.-H., et al. (2014). CiteSeer x: A Scholarly Big Dataset. In M. de Rijke, A. P. de Vries, C. Zhai, F. de Jong, K. Radinsky, & K. Hofmann (Eds.), 36th European conference on IR research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 13–16 2014 (Vol. 8416, pp. 311–322), LNCS sublibrary. SL 3, Information systems and application, incl. Internet/Web and HCI). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_26 .
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18–26.
Croft, W. B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2015). Search engines: Information retrieval in practice. Boston: Pearson.
de Winter, Joost C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98, 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 .
Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduna-Malea, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2018). Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment. In W. Glaenzel, H. Moed, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Berlin: Springer.
Duke, L. M., & Asher, A. D. (Eds.). (2012). College libraries and student culture: What we now know. Chicago: American Library Association.
Eastman, C. M., & Jansen, B. J. (2003). Coverage, relevance, and ranking. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 21, 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1145/944012.944015 .
Georgas, H. (2014). Google vs. the library (part II): Student search patterns and behaviors when using Google and a federated search tool. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 503–532.
Grigas, V., Juzėnienė, S., & Veličkaitė, J. (2016). ‘Just Google it’: The scope of freely available information sources for doctoral thesis writing. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 22(1), n1.
Haines, L. L., Light, J., O’Malley, D., & Delwiche, F. A. (2010). Information-seeking behavior of basic science researchers: Implications for library services. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 98, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.019 .
Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation: Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 .
Harzing, A.-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98, 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y .
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017). Microsoft Academic is one year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112, 1887–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3 .
Hawking, D., Craswell, N., Bailey, P., & Griffiths, K. (2001). Measuring search engine quality. Information Retrieval, 4, 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011468107287 .
Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52, 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017919924342 .
Hug, S. E., & Braendle, M. P. (2017). The coverage of Microsoft academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics, 113, 1551–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3 .
Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520510598066 .
Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010 .
Jacsó, P. (2012). Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h-index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia—Siren songs and air-raid sirens. Online Information Review, 36, 462–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211241503 .
Jamali, H. R., & Asadi, S. (2010). Google and the scholar: The role of Google in scientists’ information-seeking behaviour. Online Information Review, 34, 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011036990 .
Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2003). An analysis of web documents retrieved and viewed. In P. Langendoerfer & O. Droegehorn (Eds.), 4th International conference on internet computing, Las Vegas, Nevada, 23–26 June (pp. 65–69).
Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 .
Khan, S., Liu, X., Shakil, K. A., & Alam, M. (2017). A survey on scholarly data: From big data perspective. Information Processing and Management, 53, 923–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.03.006 .
Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on the web. Nature, 400, 107–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/21987 .
Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2015). Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)? Granada: EC3 Working Papers (19).
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018a). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116, 2175–2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9 .
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Harzing, A.-W., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics, 11, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008 .
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018b). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/42nkm .
Mayr, P., & Walter, A.-K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31, 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841784 .
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, 2105–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677 .
Mingers, J., & Meyer, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112, 1111–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x .
Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers. EC3 Working Papers, 18(23).
Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104, 931–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 .
Orduña-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: An analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, 98, 2353–2367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8 .
Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Ayllon, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014b). The silent fading of an academic search engine: The case of Microsoft Academic Search. Online Information Review, 38, 936–953. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2014-0169 .
Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2017). Google Scholar as a source for scholarly evaluation: A bibliographic review of database errors. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 40(4), 185.
Ortega, J. L. (2014). Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook (Chandos information professional series). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Oxford University Press. (2008). Oxford wordlist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pederson, J. P. (2001). International directory of company histories (International Directory of Company Histories Ser) (Vol. 40). Farmington Hills: Saint James Press. (Imprint); Cengage Gale.
Prins, A. A. M., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25, 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv049 .
Shariff, S. Z., Bejaimal, S. A., Sontrop, J. M., Iansavichus, A. V., Haynes, R. B., Weir, M. A., et al. (2013). Retrieving clinical evidence: A comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2624 .
Shultz, M. (2007). Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 95, 442–445. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442 .
Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34, 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238 .
Thelwall, M. (Ed.). (2009). Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences (Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services) (Vol. 4). San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Thelwall, M. (2018). Microsoft Academic automatic document searches: Accuracy for journal articles and suitability for citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.001 .
Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 570–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002 .
van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512, 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a .
Vaughan, L., & Thelwall, M. (2004). Search engine coverage bias: Evidence and possible causes. Information Processing and Management, 40, 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4573(03)00063-3 .
Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Search markets and search results: The case of Bing. Library & Information Science Research, 35, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.04.006 .