Is Google scholar really scholarly?

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad Loan ◽  
Shueb Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Economic Recession ◽  
Child Labour ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Good Number

Purpose This paper aims to identify the scholarly nature of the results retrieved by the Google Scholar on the five major global problems, i.e. global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour. Design/methodology/approach The five terms (global warming, economic recession, terrorism, HIV AIDS and child labour) were searched into the Google Scholar database, and the first 50 retrieved hits were manually analysed to record the relevant bibliographic details. The scholarship of the results was measured by quality indices like h-index, Altmetrics and Journal Impact Factor. The Scopus – the world’s biggest abstract and citation database – was used to identify the h-index of the prolific authors, citations of articles and impact factor of journals. Findings The study reveals that Google Scholar retrieves a good number of publications on the selected global problems from reputed publishers such as Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, Cambridge University Press, Blackwell and Sage and published from well-developed countries such as the USA, UK and Switzerland. Google Scholar mostly retrieves articles and research papers from qualitative journals having a good impact factor such as Nature, Science, The Lancet, American Journal of Public Health, The Economic Journal, Social Science and Medicine and Annals of Tourism Research. These articles and books are contributed by the reputed authors having high h-index. The journal articles and books retrieved have also a good number of citations, although such results are limited. The results prove that Google Scholar is scholarly in nature to a great extent. Research limitations/implications The findings are limited to Google Scholar only and cannot be generalized for the rest of the search tools or databases. Further, the study included only five major global problems in the study, and thus, results cannot be applicable to other areas of knowledge. Practical implications The study is a checklist to know the retrieval performance of Google Scholar in terms of quality of content. Originality/value It is the first study of its kind that takes into account the nature of content on major global problems retrieved by the Google Scholar. It is also the first study that used bibliometric analysis to evaluate the quality of results retrieved.

Graduate students appreciate Google Scholar, but still find use for libraries

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming-der Wu ◽  
Shih-chuan Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
University Libraries ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Technology Students ◽  
Usage Patterns

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine how graduate students perceive and use Google Scholar. Google Scholar has provided a convenient alternative for finding scholarly documents since its inception in 2004 and has become a favoured tool for numerous academics. Knowledge of patrons’ usage patterns and attitudes towards Google Scholar will assist librarians in designing appropriate instruction programmes to improve students’ research abilities. Design/methodology/approach – In this study, 32 graduate students from the National Taiwan University were interviewed whose fields of study are the humanities (10), social sciences (11) and science and technology (11). Findings – Students prefer the usability of Google Scholar over library databases. However, they appreciate the quality of documents retrieved from library databases and regard these databases as crucial tools for finding scholarly documents. Science and technology students favoured Google Scholar more than those who study the humanities and social sciences. Research limitations/implications – This study only examines the perceptions and behaviour of graduate students. Future studies should include undergraduate students to investigate their use of Google Scholar, thereby obtaining a comprehensive understanding of various patrons of university libraries. Practical implications – This study shows that graduate students appreciate and use Google Scholar to find scholarly documents, although some students experience difficulties. The findings of this study may assist university libraries in improving their instruction programmes. Originality/value – The majority of previous studies have focused on coverage, quality and retrieval performance of Google Scholar. However, this study evaluates Google Scholar from a user’s perspective.

ANALYSIS OF QUOTES FROM ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN “FOLIA TURISTICA” IN 1990-2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 7-8
Author(s):  
Tomasz Rusin
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Average Impact ◽  
Period Data ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose. The aim of this article is to acquire as much knowledge as possible on the changing impact factor of publications in “Folia Turistica” („FT”) in 1990-2016, the subjects of these works, the most frequently cited articles, and their authors. The aim is also to explore the works citing the articles in the periodical (including the time and countries in which they were written, their subjects, authors, and the sources of the publications). Method. The analysis was conducted from 4 February to 8 March 2019, using Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases. The data acquired was processed using statistical methods. Findings. The analyses found the numbers of citations of articles published in FT and the sum total of citations of published works in 1990-2016 in sources indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. This allowed us to establish the changing percentage of citations over the years and the average impact of articles published in various issues of the journal. Based on the data from the analyzed sources, an h-index was established for the journal, with the most frequently cited articles and their fields, as well as the most frequently cited authors of works of articles published in the relevant period. Data collected at Web of Science and Scopus allowed us to establish the number of references to articles published in „FT”, appearing in various years, titles, authors, sources, and fields, and the most often quoted publications published in „FT” and the countries with which these publications were affiliated. Research and conclusions limitations. The analysis concerns citations in Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases, accessed 8 March 2019 and limited to articles published in “Folia Turistica” in period 1990-2016. Practical implications. This analysis could be a source of information for defining the later publishing policies of “Folia Turistica” and a basis for future comparative analyses. Originality. This is the first analysis of citations of articles published in “Folia Turistica”. Type of work. This article presents the results of empirical studies.

Analysis of Quotes from Articles Published in “Folia Turistica” in 1990-2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
Tomasz Rusin
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Average Impact ◽  
Period Data ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose. The aim of this article is to acquire as much knowledge as possible on the changing impact factor of publications in “Folia Turistica” („FT”) in 1990-2016, the subjects of these works, the most frequently cited articles, and their authors. The aim is also to explore the works citing the articles in the periodical (including the time and countries in which they were written, their subjects, authors, and the sources of the publications). Method. The analysis was conducted from 4 February to 8 March 2019, using Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases. The data acquired was processed using statistical methods. Findings. The analyses found the numbers of citations of articles published in FT and the sum total of citations of published works in 1990-2016 in sources indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. This allowed us to establish the changing percentage of citations over the years and the average impact of articles published in various issues of the journal. Based on the data from the analyzed sources, an h-index was established for the journal, with the most frequently cited articles and their fields, as well as the most frequently cited authors of works of articles published in the relevant period. Data collected at Web of Science and Scopus allowed us to establish the number of references to articles published in „FT”, appearing in various years, titles, authors, sources, and fields, and the most often quoted publications published in „FT” and the countries with which these publications were affiliated. Research and conclusions limitations. The analysis concerns citations in Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases, accessed 8 March 2019 and limited to articles published in “Folia Turistica” in period 1990-2016. Practical implications. This analysis could be a source of information for defining the later publishing policies of “Folia Turistica” and a basis for future comparative analyses. Originality. This is the first analysis of citations of articles published in “Folia Turistica”. Type of work. This article presents the results of empirical studies.

Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late?

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Jacsó
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
H Index ◽  
Total Citation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Author Citation

PurposeSeven years after the release of Google Scholar in 2004, it was enhanced by a new module, the Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker (GSACT), currently a small subset of the complete Google Scholar (GS) database. The aim of this paper is to focus on this enhancement.Design/methodology/approachThe paper discusses the Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker, its features, potential benefits and problems.FindingsGSACT allows registered users to create and edit their scientific profiles and some bibliometric indicators, such as the h‐index, total citation counts, and the i10 index. These metrics are provided for the entire academic career of authors and for the most recent five‐year period. The new module also offers some long overdue essential options, such as sorting result lists of the documents by their publication year, title, and the citations receivedOriginality/valueThe paper shows that, at present, GSACT may be too little, too late. However, with an extension of the current clean‐up project it could possibly become a really scholarly resource in the long run.

Evaluation of the academic productivity of the top 100 worldwide physicians in the field of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery using the Google Scholar h-index as the bibliometrics ranking system

2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (12) ◽  
pp. 1097-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
M T Kalcioglu ◽  
Y Ileri ◽  
O I Ozdamar ◽  
U Yilmaz ◽  
M Tekin
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Head And Neck Surgery ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Academic Impact ◽  
Ranking System ◽  
H Index ◽  
Ranking Systems

AbstractObjectiveThe top 100 physicians of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery worldwide were investigated using the Google Scholar h-index.MethodAlthough there are various bibliometrics ranking systems that present the academic quantity and quality of scientists’ published articles, the h-index is the most popular and widely accepted. In this study, Google Scholar was used to search all the keywords involving all the subspecialties of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery, with the aim of identifying as many physicians as possible. Obtaining the Google Scholar h-index and citations is not possible for scientists who do not have Google Scholar accounts. Thus, only those with Google Scholar accounts were included.ResultsThe average h-index of all 100 physicians enrolled in the study was 37.83, with a range of 25–81.ConclusionThe current study details the academic impact of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery physicians worldwide based on the Google Scholar h-index.

scholarly journals Effect of Number of Versions on Receiving High Citations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Ale Ebrahim ◽  
Hadi Salehi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Web

Nowadays, the h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based upon the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. Besides, the most commonly used measure of journal quality is Impact Factor. This is a number which attempts to measure the impact of a journal in terms of the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. So, receiving more citation is very important for authors and journals to get high h-index and impact factor. In this paper, we tried to analyses the effect of the number of available version from the web on receive more citations. We analyzed 10162 papers which are published in Scopus database in year 2010. Then we developed a software to collect the number of citations and versions of each paper from Google Scholar automatically.

scholarly journals Relationship of Google Scholar Versions and Paper Citations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjan Mohammadjafari ◽  
Hadi Salehi ◽  
Kaveh Bakhtiyari ◽  
Nader Ale Ebrahim ◽  
Mahmoud Danaee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Google Scholar ◽  
Spearman Correlation ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Quality Of Research

The number of citations that a paper has received is the most commonly used indicator to measure the quality of research. Researchers, journals, and universities want to receive more citations for their scholarly publications to increase their h-index, impact factor, and ranking respectively. In this paper, we tried to analyses the effect of the number of available Google Scholar versions of a paper on citations count. We analyzed 10,162 papers which are published in Scopus database in year 2010 by Malaysian top five universities. Then we developed a software to collect the number of citations and versions of each paper from Google Scholar automatically. The result of spearman correlation coefficient revealed that there is positive significant association between the number of Google Scholar versions of a paper and the number of times a paper has been cited.

scholarly journals Effect of Number of Versions on Receiving High Citations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Ale Ebrahim ◽  
Hadi Salehi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Web

Nowadays, the h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based upon the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. Besides, the most commonly used measure of journal quality is Impact Factor. This is a number which attempts to measure the impact of a journal in terms of the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. So, receiving more citation is very important for authors and journals to get high h-index and impact factor. In this paper, we tried to analyses the effect of the number of available version from the web on receive more citations. We analyzed 10162 papers which are published in Scopus database in year 2010. Then we developed a software to collect the number of citations and versions of each paper from Google Scholar automatically.

Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad Loan ◽  
Nahida Nasreen ◽  
Bisma Bashir
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Simple Arithmetic ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Publication Count ◽  
Microsoft Office ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThe study's main purpose is to scrutinize Google Scholar profiles and find the answer to the question, “Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar Bibliometric Indicators like h-index and i10-index?”Design/methodology/approachThe authors scrutinized the Google Scholar profiles of the top 50 library and science researchers claiming authorship of 21,022 publications. The bibliographic information of all the 21,022 publications like authorship and subject details were verified to identify accuracy, discrepancies and manipulation in their authorship claims. The actual and fabricated entries of all the authors along with their citations were recorded in the Microsoft Office Excel 2007 for further analyses and interpretation using simple arithmetic calculations.FindingsThe results show that the h-index of authors obtained from the Google Scholar should not be approved at its face value as the variations exist in the publication count and citations, which ultimately affect their h-index and i10 index. The results reveal that the majority of the authors have variations in publication count (58%), citations (58%), h-index (42%) and i10-index (54%). The magnitude of variation in the number of publications, citations, h-index and i10-index is very high, especially for the top-ranked authors.Research limitations/implicationsThe scope of the study is strictly restricted to the faculty members of library and information science and cannot be generalized across disciplines. Further, the scope of the study is limited to Google Scholar and caution needs to be taken to extend results to other databases like Web of Science and Scopus.Practical implicationsThe study has practical implications for authors, publishers, and academic institutions. Authors must stop the unethical research practices; publishers must adopt techniques to overcome the problem and academic institutions need to take precautions before hiring, recruiting, promoting and allocating resources to the candidates on the face value of the Google Scholar h-index. Besides, Google needs to work on the weak areas of Google Scholar to improve its efficacy.Originality/valueThe study brings to light the new ways of manipulating bibliometric indicators like h-index, and i10-index provided by Google Scholar using false authorship claims.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document