Online Information Review

Google Scholar: the pros and the cons

Pter Jacs

Article information:

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Pter Jacs, (2005),"Google Scholar: the pros and the cons", Online Information Review, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp.
208 - 214
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520510598066
Downloaded on: 29 September 2014, At: 00:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 3 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 20607 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

David D. Oberhelman, (2005),"Editorial", Reference Reviews, Vol. 19 Iss 8 pp. Johnson Paul, (2006),"Yahoo! to the Max20061Randolph Hock, . Yahoo! to the Max. Medford, NJ:
Information Today, Inc. 2005. 256 pp., ISBN: 0#910965#69#2 $24.95", Program, Vol. 40 Iss 2 pp. 190-191
Xiaotian Chen, (2012),"Google Books and WorldCat: a comparison of their content", Online Information
Review, Vol. 36 Iss 4 pp. 507-516

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 434496 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

OIR
29,2

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm

SAVVY SEARCHING

Google Scholar: the pros

and the cons

208

Peter Jacso
University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii, USA
Abstract

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

Purpose To identify the pros and the cons of Google Scholar.

Design/methodology/approach Chronicles the recent history of the Google Scholar search
engine from its inception in November 2004 and critiques it with regard to its merits and demerits.
Findings Feels that there are massive content omissions presently but that, with future changes in
its structure, Google Scholar will become an excellent free tool for scholarly information discovery and
retrieval.
Originality/value Presents a useful analysis for potential users of the Google Scholar site.
Keywords Reference services, Internet, Search engines
Paper type General review

The launch of Google Scholar not surprisingly drew much attention and praise,
although not necessarily for the right reasons, both from the popular and the
professional media. Google makes it very easy and free to find scholarly information
about any topic an important service for those who do not have access to the most
appropriate fee-based indexing/abstracting databases which traditionally have helped
in information discovery. Google Scholar goes beyond information discovery by
leading qualifying users at subscribing libraries to the primary digital documents, and
any users to the millions of open access (free) primary documents offered through
mega-databases of preprint and reprint servers, as well as to the full text digital
collections of several government agencies and research organizations. Google also
deserves credit for introducing albeit a bit belatedly advanced options to refine the
search process. On the negative side, the most important problem is that the crawlers
of Google Scholar have not indexed millions of articles, even though they were let into
the digital archives of most of the largest academic publishers and preprint servers and
repositories. The stunning gaps give a false impression of the scholarly coverage of
topics and lead to the omission of highly relevant articles by those who need more than
just a few pertinent research documents. The rather enigmatic presentation of the
results befuddles many users and the lack of any sort options frustrates the savvy
searchers.

Online Information Review

Vol. 29 No. 2, 2005
pp. 208-214
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520510598066

Pros
Google deserves credit for making the first step in providing a tool for discovering
scholarly information, even though access may be limited to very short bibliographic
citations of articles and conference papers in a sizable segment of Google Scholar. Still,
many of the records have informative snippets from the full text for any users, and
many also offer the abstracts of the articles for anyone. This free service alone is

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

roughly equivalent to what several of the traditional online indexing/abstracting

databases have been providing for a hefty fee. The big plus is that Google searches the
indexes created from the full text or part of the full text of the primary documents (even
it is shows only a snippet of it), not merely the bibliographic records, abstracts and the
subject terms (if assigned by the author or the publisher to the articles).
The crawlers of Google Scholar were let in the huge databases of the largest and
most well-known scholarly publishers and university presses (such as IEEE, ACM,
Macmillan, Wiley, University of Chicago); their digital hosts/facilitators (such as
HighWire Press, MetaPress, Ingenta); societies and other scholarly organizations and
government agencies (such as the American Physical Society, National Institute of
Health, NOAA), and preprint/reprint servers (such as arXiv.org, Astrophysics Data
System, RePEc, and CiteBase).
Patrons of libraries which have subscription to the digital archives of publishers are
the greatest beneficiaries of Google Scholar, as with a single search they are lead to the
digital full text versions of the articles and their supplements. This is particularly
valuable for those libraries which have no federated search engines, and expect the
patrons to repeat their searches by hopping from one publishers archive to the other,
finding the query form and resubmitting the same query which is not the prevailing
attitude. In Google Scholar multiple database search is the default approach, unless the
user specifies the publisher by using its URL in the site parameter, such as , tsunami
site:ieee.org . . Once again, any user can see the bibliographic records, the abstract (if
available with the paper), and/or the snippets of the context of the full text matching
the query, and may order the document often at a much lower price than charged by
some of the document delivery services.
The initial launch of Google Scholar in mid-November 2004 did not offer an
advanced search template. In the review of the initial beta version (Jacso, 2004), I voiced
my disappointment that Google treats the highly structured records of scholarly
articles the same way as the billions of unstructured web pages, even though the
former have unambiguously and consistently tagged metadata identifying the title, the
author, the journal name, the publication year and many other fields. Laudably, a
month later the advanced template was introduced with good tips for providing
additional search criteria to refine the searches (see Figure 1). Although some of them
(such as the publication year) are not totally reliable, it is a good move by Google. So is
the calculation and display of the cited by score, whose credence, however, should be
established by disclosing the sources covered, and by vastly improving their currently
unsystematic, unpredictable and disturbingly fragmentary coverage.
The coverage of Google is impressively broad and includes the most important
scholarly publishers archives with the notable exception of Elseviers, the largest
publisher. It is another question that the coverage of many archives is extremely
shallow, which leads me to the cons.

Cons
The underlying problem with Google Scholar is that Google is as secretive about its
coverage as the North Korean government about the famine in the country. There is no
information about the publishers whose archive Google is allowed to search, let alone
about the specific journals and the host sites covered by Google Scholar.

Google Scholar:
the pros and
the cons
209

OIR
29,2

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

210

Figure 1.
Field-specific indexes for
search criteria

Another feature undisclosed by Google, but reported and well-illustrated among

others by Gary Price specifically for Google Scholar (Price, 2004) is the fact that it
limits the indexing of the collected files to the first 100-120K-bytes of the text
(depending on the file type). The size of the majority of scholarly feature articles are
close to or even exceed 1M-byte. If the search term occurs first beyond Googles limit,
the item would not be found. In fairness, AskJeeves has a similar limit, MSN is slightly
more generous with a 150KB limit, and Yahoo! stops indexing at about 0.5MB
(Sullivan, 2004).
My comparative search results in mid-November 2004 and on 1 January 2005
suggest that the content of Google Scholar has not been updated since its launch. This
is not a major problem yet, but over time the staleness will become more prominent.
Google has not disclosed yet how often it will be updated.
In this column I focus on the gaps still found through test searches in the first days
of 2005 in the coverage of the most prominent archives covered by Google Scholar. The
tests were done by limiting the subject search to specific site names which host the
archives, such as , site:nature.com . for the Nature Publishing Group,
, site:sciencemag.org . for Science magazine and , site:adsabs.harvard.edu . for
the Astrophysics Data System, which is maintained by Harvard University among
many other mirror sites. The site limiters are not always obvious, but from scanning
search results the diligent user can figure them out. In some other cases a slightly
different version of the domain name may yield somewhat different results, so one
should proceed carefully (Jacso, 2004). My special polysearch engine which I used for
the test is available for anyone at www2.hawaii.edu/ , jacso/scholarly/
side-by-side2.htm
The test results were deeply disappointing in Google Scholar in light of what the
native search engines of the sites retrieve for the same query. Through Google the
search for tsunami in the title field limited to the site of the Nature Publishing Group

Google Scholar:
the pros and
the cons

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

211

Figure 2.
The hit ratio between the
native search engine and
Google Scholar is 8:1

(NPG) yields a single record, while the native search engine finds eight items, all of
them relevant.
Searching for the words tsunami warning in the full text using the two alternative
tools shows an even bigger discrepancy; 17 items retrieved by the native search engine
and only one by Google Scholar (see Figure 2).
For verification, the 16 additional hits were searched using the allintitle option in
Google Scholar without any site limitations to see if the records may be available
through other sources. One was found in ADS, two in the archive of the National
Institute of Health (NIH). For one article there was one minimalist record found labeled
as [CITATION]. This follow-up known-item search still resulted in an abysmal hit rate
in Google Scholar (see Figure 3).

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

OIR
29,2

212

Figure 3.
The ratio is far worse for
full-text searching

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

Apparently Google did not fully index the current eight-year collection, let alone the
archive of Nature (which includes all the issues between 1987-1996) and the other 64
journals of NPG, all of which are hosted on the nature.com site. The native search
engine at the NPG site finds nearly 87,000 records for items published in Nature alone
between January 1987 and December 2004; Google Scholar finds only 13,700 records
from the entire nature.com site. Using Google Scholar to search for the exact phrase
tsunami warning in the Nature retrieves one hit for a 1993 article from the ADS
database of Harvard and none from Natures archive (see Figure 4). The native search
engine finds seven matching records.
The ADS record provides a link to the Nature archive, but the otherwise excellent
ADS collection is not a substitute for Natures 18 years of digital coverage at its home
site. In addition the test searches revealed that Google Scholar also has a puny
coverage of ADS itself. The native search engine of the ADS database finds 32 records
with the exact phrase tsunami warning in the abstract, while Google Scholar
retrieves a mere nine records for the same query from the ADS database. It is quite
telling about the shallowness of coverage that Google finds only 268,600 of the more
than 4.1 million indexing/abstracting records in ADS.
A similar pattern is found when searching the ten-year archive of Science magazine
(October 1995-December 2004) by the native search engine (nearly 40,000 records)
versus Google Scholar with the site:sciencemag.org parameter (11,800 records). For the
exact phrase tsunami warning Google Scholar retrieved a single record with this site
limiter parameter, while the native search engine found three articles. Although Google
Scholar does not always reproduce the same number of hits even when repeated within
one hour intervals, these hit figures did show up consistently (see Figure 5). This was
not the case when searching the site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS), which retrieved 12,900 hits in late November, but 300 fewer records
on 1 January 2005. I can only speculate that Google dynamically assigns the server to
answer the query and the query-servers may not mirror their content exactly. The
above three periodicals are among the most cited and most respected scholarly journals
in their respective fields. If Google Scholar finds only 10-30 per cent of the records

Google Scholar:
the pros and
the cons
213

Figure 4.
A record for a Nature
article retrieved only from
the ADS database

OIR
29,2

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

214

Figure 5.
Search results from ADS
through its native search
engine and Google Scholar

which are available through using the sophisticated, still intuitive, native search
engines, users would remain unaware of many potentially important articles.
These days, when scientists, administrators, politicians and financial experts need
to find comprehensive and high quality scholarly information about the state of the art
in tsunami warning systems to implement a feasible solution for the devastated Indian
Ocean region, many will turn to Google Scholar to discover only a fragment of the
scholarly literature. They also miss out on many scholarly papers which are open
access (sometimes after an embargo of 3-12 months), as is the case with the
poorly-covered papers published in the top-cited PNAS. Google has kept the beta label
as a shield for some of its services for years The fact that Google Scholar is in beta
version is not a good excuse for the massive content omissions. Google has used the
beta shield for some of its services for over two years after their launch. Hopefully,
Google Scholar will come out from its beta in a much shorter time, disclose the sources
covered and fill the gaps to provide an excellent free tool for scholarly information
discovery and retrieval.
References
Jacso, P. (2004), Peters digital ready reference shelf Google Scholar, (web-only document),
available at: http://GoogleScholar.notlong.com
Price, G. (2004), Google Scholar documentation and large PDF files, (web-only document),
available at: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/041201-105511
Sullivan, D. (2004), Search engine size war erupts, (web-only document), available at: http://
blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/041111-084221

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Hee Andy Lee, Norman Au, Gang Li, Rob Law. 2014. An insight into research performance through
a citation counting analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21, 54-63. [CrossRef]
2. Learn over theory 219-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
3. Learn over theory 219-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
4. Joost C. F. de Winter, Amir A. Zadpoor, Dimitra Dodou. 2014. The expansion of Google Scholar versus
Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics 98, 1547-1565. [CrossRef]
5. Nicola J. Smith, Donna Lee. 2014. What's Queer About Political Science?. The British Journal of Politics
& International Relations n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
6. S. Adriaanse Leslie, Rensleigh Chris. 2013. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. The Electronic
Library 31:6, 727-744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. J. W. Fedderke. 2013. The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed
against bibliometric indexes. Scientometrics 97, 177-206. [CrossRef]
8. Liang Chen, Clyde W. Holsapple. 2013. Evaluating Journal Quality: Beyond Expert Journal Assessments
in the IS Discipline. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 23, 392-412.
[CrossRef]
9. Lawrence A. DeLuca, Alex St. John, Uwe Stolz, Lincoln Matheson, Allan Simpson, Kurt R. Denninghoff,
David C. Cone. 2013. The Distribution of the H-index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the
United States. Academic Emergency Medicine 20:10.1111/acem.2013.20.issue-10, 997-1003. [CrossRef]
10. Sara Jahnke, Juergen Hoyer. 2013. Stigmatization of People With Pedophilia: A Blind Spot in Stigma
Research. International Journal of Sexual Health 25, 169-184. [CrossRef]
11. Francesca De Battisti, Silvia Salini. 2013. Robust analysis of bibliometric data. Statistical Methods &
Applications 22, 269-283. [CrossRef]
12. Wonsik Shim. 2012. Big Deal, Open Access, Google Scholar and the Subscription of Electronic Scholarly
Contents at University Libraries. Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 29, 143-163.
[CrossRef]
13. CHRIS PIOTROWSKI. 2012. CITATION-BASED FINDINGS ARE (LARGELY) A FUNCTION
OF METHOD OF ANALYSIS: A COMMENT ON BLACK (2012) 1. Psychological Reports 111,
711-716. [CrossRef]
14. Alexander Dilger, Harry Mller. 2012. Ein Forschungsleistungsranking auf der Grundlage von Google
Scholar. Zeitschrift fr Betriebswirtschaft 82, 1089-1105. [CrossRef]
15. Chung Joo Chung, Han Woo Park. 2012. Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals.
Scientometrics 93, 207-215. [CrossRef]
16. Pter Jacs. 2012. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications. Online Information Review 36:4, 604-619.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Mike Thelwall. 2012. Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective. Scientometrics 92, 429-441.
[CrossRef]
18. Peter Jacso. 2012. Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal
Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclays criticism. Scientometrics 92, 325-354. [CrossRef]
19. Emilio Delgado-Lpez-Czar, lvaro Cabezas-Clavijo. 2012. <i>Google Scholar Metrics</i>: an
unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Profesional de la Informacion 21, 419-427. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

20. Pter Jacs. 2012. Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the hindex in nationwide
publishing assessments in academia siren songs and airraid sirens. Online Information Review 36:3,
462-478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Andreas G.F. Hoepner, Benjamin Kant, Bert Scholtens, Pei-Shan Yu. 2012. Environmental and ecological
economics in the 21st century: An age adjusted citation analysis of the influential articles, journals, authors
and institutions. Ecological Economics 77, 193-206. [CrossRef]
22. Panagiota Altanopoulou, Maria Dontsidou, Nikolaos Tselios. 2012. Evaluation of ninety-three major
Greek university departments using Google Scholar. Quality in Higher Education 18, 111-137. [CrossRef]
23. Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall, Somayeh Rezaie. 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 62:10.1002/asi.v62.11, 2147-2164. [CrossRef]
24. Gerry Kerr. 2011. What Simon said: the impact of the major management works of Herbert Simon.
Journal of Management History 17:4, 399-419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Carol Haigh, Pip Hardy. 2011. Tell me a story a conceptual exploration of storytelling in healthcare
education. Nurse Education Today 31, 408-411. [CrossRef]
26. Chang-Wook Jeung, Hea Jun Yoon, Sunyoung Park, Sung Jun Jo. 2011. The contributions of human
resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis. Human Resource
Development Quarterly 22:10.1002/hrdq.v22.1, 87-109. [CrossRef]
27. Xiaotian Chen. 2010. Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut. Serials
Review 36, 221-226. [CrossRef]
28. Xiaotian Chen. 2010. Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut a. Serials
Review 36, 221-226. [CrossRef]
29. Carol A. Haigh. 2010. Reconstructing nursing altruism using a biological evolutionary framework. Journal
of Advanced Nursing 66:10.1111/jan.2010.66.issue-6, 1401-1408. [CrossRef]
30. Xiaotian Chen. 2010. The Declining Value of Subscription-based Abstracting and Indexing Services in
the New Knowledge Dissemination Era. Serials Review 36, 79-85. [CrossRef]
31. Dirk Lewandowski. 2010. Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and
information science. Online Information Review 34:2, 250-262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Dan Ben-David. 2010. Ranking Israels economists. Scientometrics 82, 351-364. [CrossRef]
33. Bhaskar MukherjeeWeb citation analysis of journals contents 211-249. [CrossRef]
34. D. Jordan Lowe, David D. Van Fleet. 2009. Scholarly achievement and accounting journal editorial board
membership. Journal of Accounting Education 27, 197-209. [CrossRef]
35. Eric T Meyer, Ralph Schroeder. 2009. The world wide web of research and access to knowledge. Knowledge
Management Research &#38; Practice 7, 218-233. [CrossRef]
36. Geoffrey N. Soutar, Jamie Murphy. 2009. Journal quality: A Google Scholar analysis. Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ) 17, 150-153. [CrossRef]
37. Tomislav Hengl, Budiman Minasny, Michael Gould. 2009. A geostatistical analysis of geostatistics.
Scientometrics 80, 491-514. [CrossRef]
38. M. Auffhammer. 2009. The State of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Google Scholar
Perspective. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 3, 251-269. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

39. Bhaskar Mukherjee. 2009. Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly
impact? A bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:10.1002/asi.v60:3, 581-594. [CrossRef]
40. Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hans-Dieter Daniel.
2009. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistryCitation counts
for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published
elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of
Informetrics 3, 27-35. [CrossRef]
41. Michael Thelwall. 2009. Introduction to Webometrics: Quantitative Web Research for the Social Sciences.
Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 1, 1-116. [CrossRef]
42. G.E. Gorman. 2008. They can't read, but they sure can count. Online Information Review 32:6, 705-708.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Michael Norris, Charles Oppenheim, Fytton Rowland. 2008. The citation advantage of open-access
articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:10.1002/asi.v59:12,
1963-1972. [CrossRef]
44. Pter Jacs. 2008. The pros and cons of computing the hindex using Web of Science. Online Information
Review 32:5, 673-688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Dora Marinova, Peter Newman. 2008. The changing research funding regime in Australia and academic
productivity. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 78, 283-291. [CrossRef]
46. Philipp Mayr, Anne-Kathrin Walter. 2008. Studying Journal Coverage in Google Scholar. Journal of
Library Administration 47, 81-99. [CrossRef]
47. Mark Sanderson. 2008. Revisitingh measured on UK LIS and IR academics. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology 59:10.1002/asi.v59:7, 1184-1190. [CrossRef]
48. John J. Meier, Thomas W. Conkling. 2008. Google Scholars Coverage of the Engineering Literature:
An Empirical Study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, 196-201. [CrossRef]
49. David Ettinger. 2008. The Triumph of Expediency: The Impact of Google Scholar on Library
Instruction. Journal of Library Administration 46, 65-72. [CrossRef]
50. Pter Jacs. 2008. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review 32:1, 102-114. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
51. Alastair G. Smith. 2008. Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment
exercise. Scientometrics 74, 309-316. [CrossRef]
52. Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall. 2008. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation
Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics 74, 273-294. [CrossRef]
53. Mike Thelwall, Xuemei Li, Franz Barjak, Simon Robinson. 2008. Assessing the international web
connectivity of research groups. Aslib Proceedings 60:1, 18-31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Judit Bar-Ilan. 2008. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st centuryA review. Journal of Informetrics
2, 1-52. [CrossRef]
55. Philipp Mayr, AnneKathrin Walter. 2007. An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information
Review 31:6, 814-830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Lokman I. Meho, Kiduk Yang. 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 58:10.1002/asi.v58:13, 2105-2125. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 00:43 29 September 2014 (PT)

57. William H. Walters. 2007. Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing &
Management 43, 1121-1132. [CrossRef]
58. Glenn Haya, Else Nygren, Wilhelm Widmark. 2007. Metalib and Google Scholar: a user study. Online
Information Review 31:3, 365-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall. 2007. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
58:10.1002/asi.v58:7, 1055-1065. [CrossRef]
60. Michael Norris, Charles Oppenheim. 2007. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of
the social sciences literature. Journal of Informetrics 1, 161-169. [CrossRef]
61. Mary L. Robinson, Judith Wusteman. 2007. Putting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study.
Program 41:1, 71-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Alastair SmithInformation sources 105-119. [CrossRef]
63. Rena Helms-Park, Pavlina Radia, Paul Stapleton. 2007. A preliminary assessment of Google Scholar as a
source of EAP students' research materials. The Internet and Higher Education 10, 65-76. [CrossRef]
64. Norbert Lossau, Sabine Rahmsdorf, Dirk Lewandowski, Philipp Mayr. 2006. Exploring the academic
invisible web. Library Hi Tech 24:4, 529-539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Xiaotian Chen. 2006. MetaLib, WebFeat, and Google. Online Information Review 30:4, 413-427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Mike McGrath. 2006. Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature 56. Interlending
& Document Supply 34:3, 140-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Hans Ragneskog, Linda Gerdner. 2006. Competence in nursing informatics among nursing students
and staff at a nursing institute in Sweden. Health Information and Libraries Journal 23:10.1111/
hir.2006.23.issue-2, 126-132. [CrossRef]
68. Alan Dawson, Val Hamilton. 2006. Optimising metadata to make highvalue content more accessible to
Google users. Journal of Documentation 62:3, 307-327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. MiguelAngel Sicilia, Peter Jacso. 2006. Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online
Information Review 30:3, 297-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Pter Jacs. 2006. Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs. Online Information Review 30:2, 188-193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Kiduk Yang, Lokman I. Meho. 2006. Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and
Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 43, 1-15.
[CrossRef]
72. Pter Jacs. 2005. Visualizing overlap and rank differences among webwide search engines. Online
Information Review 29:5, 554-560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Burton Callicott, Debbie Vaughn. 2005. Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar. Internet Reference Services
Quarterly 10, 71-88. [CrossRef]
74. Pter Jacs. 2005. Options for presenting search results. Online Information Review 29:4, 412-418.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]