Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science (original) (raw)
Related papers
2020
The impact of scientific articles in respective subject fields are reflected by its citation counts in citation databases. Google Scholar (GS), a freely accessible database of scholarly papers along with their citations data, has an extensive coverage of Library and Information Science (LIS) literature. It is the only availableglobal database for the citation analysis of Indian LIS journals.The purpose of this study is an attempt to analyzethe publication age, citation density, most prolific authors and most occurred terms in the titles of highly cited articles of the journal“DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT)”based on Google Scholar data.Harzing’s Publish or Perish (PoP) software was used to download the data from GS. A total of 113 highly cited (citations = \u3e20) articles were downloaded. VOSviewer science mapping software was also used for visualization purpose. A non-significant correlation occurred between citation count and publication age. There w...
Google Scholar and academic libraries: An update
New Library World, 2008
Google Scholar and Academic Libraries 2 Abstract Purpose -This paper updates the authors' original 2005 study of Google Scholar's integration into ARL libraries web sites. Had more ARL libraries added Google Scholar? Design/methodology/approach -The library homepages of the 113 ARL academic institutions were examined for paths or links to Google Scholar. The coding scheme focused on noting if Google Scholar appeared on the library homepage, in the OPAC, and on various database lists and subject guides. Findings -The 2007 data indicate continued acceptance of Google Scholar and integration of this resource on the web pages of ARL libraries. The mean number of paths to Google Scholar more than doubled from 2005 to 2007. Partnering institutions were more likely to include paths to Google Scholar and the number of partnering institutions dramatically increased.
International Journal of Information Science and Management, 2018
Google Scholar has recently attracted great attentions as an open access multidisciplinary citation database, and a tool for retrieving scientific works for scientometricians and researchers. The present research intended to highlight the limitations brought about by efficiency policies of the search engine and its impact on the results available to users. To do so, it examined the accessibility of the retrieval results, through conducting 54 searches in this database. The results showed that the estimation of the results on the top of the first page returned by Google Scholar did not match that of the accessible results. Therefore, these statistics could not be accounted for to precisely determine the number of documents on a topic. Moreover, the results showed that although the subjects selected for the searches were very specific, the number of results for each search was very wide and exceeded the upper limit of 1,000 records authorized in Google Scholar for display. By limiting...
Online Information Review, 2008
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar.Design/methodology/approachThis paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.FindingsThe Google Books project has given a massive and valuable boost to the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The downside of the growth is that significant gaps remain for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased.Originality/valueThis paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.
International Journal of Library and Information Studies, 2017
Now days Citation analysis is very popular Bibliometric measurement of any journals, scientists and correlation of citations. This study investigates the citation and authorship patterns of International Journal of Library and Information Studies on the basis of Google Scholar. Google scholar has covers the broad areas of the scholarly literature out of world. This study is a part of google scholar, which covers the field of LIS. This article gives the Study found that inside a five years term (between2011-2015) 20 articles are 118 times cited in the GS. Only single article of "Velmurugan, C" cited 14 times. IJLIS and few library science journals are indexing in GS; it is smarter to file different journals moreover.
Google Scholar's Contribution to Scholarly Pursuits: A Comprehensive Overview
Digital Transformation in Libraries and Information Centres (pp. 193-211), Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2023
The quest for searching and retrieving authentic information is of great importance for scholars. With the growing dominance of Google Scholar as a first-stop resource for scholars and researchers, an investigation of its influence on citation patterns, freedom of information, and scholarly communication is necessary. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Google Scholar and its potential benefits for academics and researchers in various fields of research. The objectives of this research are to explore the ways in which Google Scholar can assist researchers in locating relevant scholarly works worldwide, to identify its limitations as a research tool, and to suggest potential areas for improvement of the Google Scholar platform. This study breaks new ground in understanding the various versions of Google Scholar indexes, correlations between the number of Google Scholar versions and citation counts, and the value of Institutional Repositories for increasing scholarly impact. This paper investigates Google Scholar versions as an alternative source for a scholarly article. While other articles have looked at Google Scholar through various lenses, the authors believe this specific aspect of the topic has not been previously explored. This article provides information about conducting a literature search on the Google Scholar website. The article briefly describes how to narrow or expand a search and how to find non-journal literature. Although Google Scholar is not without limitations, it offers a practical starting point for a literature search.
Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners?
2017
Since its debut I November 2004, librarians have raised several criticisms at Google Scholar (GS) such as its inconsistency of coverage and its currency and scope of coverage. It may have been true in the early years of Google Scholar but is this still through twelve years after? Is this sufficient to ignore it totally either in our information literacy programs or evaluate its value against the values of subscription-based abstracts and indexes? In this era of severe budget constraints that libraries are facing, can we imagine of substituting most or all of our subject databases with the free access of Google Scholar for discoverability? How much overlap between our databases and Google Scholar? How reliable is Google Scholar? How stable is its content over time? Open Access is getting to be the predominant form of getting access to peer reviewed articles. Many new non-traditional tools (institutional repositories, social media and peer to peer sites) are available out there to retrieve the full-text of peer reviewed articles. What can be said in terms of content and reliability of both Sci-Hub and LibGen? This article reports on preliminary results of a one year study of Google Scholar where 2,750 random samples (peer review journal articles) coming from fifty-five different databases covering all disciplines (Arts & Humanities, Law, Music, Social Sciences and STM) are tested against GS. The samples have been searched against Google Scholar at four different intervals during the year. The same samples have been searched against both Sci-Hub and LibGen in order to see how much full-text content is available under these platforms. Different data such as publication year, publishers, language of articles and OA are being looked at to see if content is affected by either or all of these parameters. To verify the currency of information in Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen, research articles from both Nature and Science (from current issues, Nature Advance Online Publication and First Release from Science) were searched on a daily basis. Results are showing that most of the peer review articles are available in Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen.
Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis
Scientometrics, 2012
Google Scholar, the academic bibliographic database provided free-of-charge by the search engine giant Google, has been suggested as an alternative or complementary resource to the commercial citation databases like Web of Knowledge (ISI/Thomson) or Scopus (Elsevier). In order to check the usefulness of this database for bibliometric analysis, and especially research evaluation, a novel approach is introduced. Instead of names of authors or institutions, a webometric analysis of academic web domains is performed. The bibliographic records for 225 top level web domains (TLD), 19,240 university and 6,380 research centres institutional web domains have been collected from the Google Scholar database. About 63.8% of the records are hosted in generic domains like .com or .org, confirming that most of the Scholar data come from large commercial or non-profit sources. Considering only institutions with at least one record, one-third of the other items (10.6% from the global) are hosted by the 10,442 universities, while 3,901 research centres amount for an additional 7.9% from the total. The individual analysis show that universities from China, Brazil, Spain, Taiwan or Indonesia are far better ranked than expected. In some cases, large international or national databases, or repositories are responsible for the high numbers found. However, in many others, the local contents, including papers in low impact journals, popular scientific literature, and unpublished reports or teaching supporting materials are clearly overrepresented. Google Scholar lacks the quality control needed for its use as a bibliometric tool; the larger coverage it provides consists in some cases of items not comparable with those provided by other similar databases.
International Journal of Research in Library Science
A bibliometric analysis of the research productivity of International Journal of Research in Library Science (IJRLS)" is presented in this paper. Through bibliometric analysis of articles published in the International Journal of Research in Library Science between 2015 to 2022, 334 articles were identified from the Google Scholar database. The paper was observed for 270 out of 334 records, and duplicate files removed from the study were found in the database. The analysis focuses on the geographic distribution of authors as well as the issue-by-issue and authorship pattern distribution of publications. The investigation looked at 270 papers that were published in the International Journal of Research in Library Science over the course of a few years. The maximum was 80(29.62%) articles published in 2021 and the minimum of 4(1.48%) articles published in 2019. The highest contribution by two authors was 115, while only 96 were contributed by single authors. Most of the contributions were from India, according to the study. The top contributors in geographical distribution are Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The most cited work was Mobile library services and technologies.
Does Google Scholar help or hurt institutional repositories
2015
Librarians often act as though Google Scholar is our new frenemy; however, the reality is somewhat more complicated. While it is true that Google Scholar’s requirements are not always transparent to us (us being libraries, archives, institutional repositories), enough research has been conducted that we can now make an educated guess as to how to organize the content in institutional repositories (IRs) and archives in ways that Google Scholar can index more effectively. Google Scholar offers many options for libraries to make their IR collections discoverable. It is true that there has been a history of Google Scholar lacking in transparency and structure; what’s more, Google Scholar citations profiles are largely accomplishing the same objectives as IRs. This chapter looks at the effect these Google programs have on IRs and how libraries can respond. Google Scholar has gained its powerful position because libraries have yet to create an effective means of searching across IRs. The ...