The Experts below are selected from a list of 84714 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Pfeiffer Library - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LibGuides: Using Google Scholar: Searching Google Scholar
2015Co-Authors: Pfeiffer LibraryAbstract:Learn to set up Google Scholar to view Pfeiffer Library's holdings. Learn how to perform an advanced search in Google Scholar
-
Pfeiffer Library: Using Google Scholar: Searching Google Scholar
2015Co-Authors: Pfeiffer LibraryAbstract:Tutorial for using Google Scholar Learn how to perform an advanced search in Google Scholar
-
LibGuides: Using Google Scholar: Setting up Google Scholar
2015Co-Authors: Pfeiffer LibraryAbstract:Learn to set up Google Scholar to view Pfeiffer Library's holdings. Learn how to set up Google Scholar to display library resources.
-
Pfeiffer Library: Using Google Scholar: Setting up Google Scholar
2015Co-Authors: Pfeiffer LibraryAbstract:Tutorial for using Google Scholar Learn how to set up Google Scholar to display library resources.
Péter Jacsó - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Google Scholar metrics for publications
Online Information Review, 2012Co-Authors: Péter JacsóAbstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the software and content features of the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) service launched in April 2012.Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews GSM, examining the software, browsing, searching and sorting functions, citation matching and content.Findings – The paper reveals that the service can offer a better alternative than the traditional Google Scholar service to discover and judge the standing of journals through the prism of their citedness. GSM could become a potentially useful complementary resource primarily by virtue of its brand recognition, and the convenience of not requiring the installation of additional software, but currently its bibliometric indicators are often inappropriate for decision making in matters of tenure, promotion, grants and accreditation.Originality/value – The paper provides a good understanding of the GSM service.
-
Google Scholar duped and deduped – the aura of “robometrics”
Online Information Review, 2011Co-Authors: Péter JacsóAbstract:Purpose – This purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the problems that exist with Google Scholar, particularly regarding content spam and citation spam.Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an analysis of how Google Scholar has been duped by real but manipulated documents and reference lists, as well as by fake documents and references. Details of research regarding the duping of Google Scholar is presented and a possible solution is offered.Findings – Researchers showed how easy it was to dupe Google Scholar. In one case, the researchers added invisible words to the first page of one of their conference papers (using the well‐known white letter on white screen/paper technique), and modified the content and bibliography of some of their already published papers, then posted them on the web to see if Google Scholar would bite, i.e. would improve their rank position, and increase the number of citations that the targeted papers received, and the number of papers published by the authors. Go...
-
Google Scholar duped and deduped the aura of robometrics
Online Information Review, 2011Co-Authors: Péter JacsóAbstract:Purpose – This purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the problems that exist with Google Scholar, particularly regarding content spam and citation spam.Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an analysis of how Google Scholar has been duped by real but manipulated documents and reference lists, as well as by fake documents and references. Details of research regarding the duping of Google Scholar is presented and a possible solution is offered.Findings – Researchers showed how easy it was to dupe Google Scholar. In one case, the researchers added invisible words to the first page of one of their conference papers (using the well‐known white letter on white screen/paper technique), and modified the content and bibliography of some of their already published papers, then posted them on the web to see if Google Scholar would bite, i.e. would improve their rank position, and increase the number of citations that the targeted papers received, and the number of papers published by the authors. Go...
-
Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar
Online Information Review, 2010Co-Authors: Péter JacsóAbstract:Purpose – Google Scholar (GS) has shed the beta label on the fifth anniversary of launching its service. This paper aims to address this issue.Design/methodology/approach – As good as GS is – through its keyword search option – to find information about tens of millions of documents, many of them in open access full text format, it is as bad for metadata‐based searching when, beyond keywords in the title, abstract, descriptor and/or full text, the searcher also has to use author name, journal title and/or publication year in specifying the query. This paper provides a review of recent developments in Google Scholar.Findings – GS is especially inappropriate for bibliometric searches, for evaluating the publishing performance and impact of researchers and journals.Originality/value – Even if the clean up of Google Scholar accelerates it should not be forgotten that those evaluations of individuals and journals that have been done based on Google Scholar in the past few years have grossly handicapped many au...
-
Google Scholar revisited
Online Information Review, 2008Co-Authors: Péter JacsóAbstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar.Design/methodology/approach – This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.Findings – The 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/value – This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.
Prilla Speer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research Guides: Google Scholar: Interlibrary & Google Scholar
2014Co-Authors: Prilla SpeerAbstract:Linking to Trevecca's library from Google Scholar, using RefWorks and Interlibrary loan as needed for resources found in Google Scholar. Using ILL services for full text of resources retrieved from Google Scholar.
-
Research Guides: Google Scholar: RefWorks & Citing from Google Scholar
2014Co-Authors: Prilla SpeerAbstract:Linking to Trevecca's library from Google Scholar, using RefWorks and Interlibrary loan as needed for resources found in Google Scholar. Citing and Exporting citations from Google Scholar into RefWorks
-
Research Guides: Google Scholar: Welcome
2014Co-Authors: Prilla SpeerAbstract:Linking to Trevecca's library from Google Scholar, using RefWorks and Interlibrary loan as needed for resources found in Google Scholar.
Rachel Cooke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Running with the devil : Accessing library-licensed full text holdings through Google Scholar
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 2005Co-Authors: Rebecca Donlan, Rachel CookeAbstract:Abstract Linking full-text proprietary databases with Google Scholar revealed three significant limitations in terms of precision (no subject heading search), transparency (no listing of information sources), and visibility (Google Scholar details are hard to find). Google Scholar is not a “one stop shopping” search engine that retrieves all relevant data from a library's licensed content. Despite these shortcomings, Google Scholar is a worthwhile search option for students, which may steer them away from Web resources, and towards the library's catalog and databases.
Ami X Garg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
retrieving clinical evidence a comparison of pubmed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2013Co-Authors: Salimah Z Shariff, Shayna A D Ejaimal, Jessica M Sontrop, Arthu V Iansavichus, Ia R Haynes, Matthew A Wei, Ami X GargAbstract:Background: Physicians frequently search PubMed for information to guide patient care. More recently, Google Scholar has gained popularity as another freely accessible bibliographic database. Objective: To compare the performance of searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Methods: We surveyed nephrologists (kidney specialists) and provided each with a unique clinical question derived from 100 renal therapy systematic reviews. Each physician provided the search terms they would type into a bibliographic database to locate evidence to answer the clinical question. We executed each of these searches in PubMed and Google Scholar and compared results for the first 40 records retrieved (equivalent to 2 default search pages in PubMed). We evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of the searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Primary studies included in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles. We further documented whether relevant articles were available as free full-texts. Results: Compared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11%; Google Scholar: 22%; P <.001). Precision was similar in both databases (PubMed: 6%; Google Scholar: 8%; P =.07). Google Scholar provided significantly greater access to free full-text publications (PubMed: 5%; Google Scholar: 14%; P <.001). Conclusions: For quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles. [J Med Internet Res 2013;15(8):e164]
