首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals.  相似文献   

2.
Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics.  相似文献   

3.
ABSTRACT

A primary impact metric for institutional repositories (IR) is the number of file downloads, which are commonly measured through third-party Web analytics software. Google Analytics, a free service used by most academic libraries, relies on HTML page tagging to log visitor activity on Google's servers. However, Web aggregators such as Google Scholar link directly to high value content (usually PDF files), bypassing the HTML page and failing to register these direct access events. This article presents evidence of a study of four institutions demonstrating that the majority of IR activity is not counted by page tagging Web analytics software, and proposes a practical solution for significantly improving the reporting relevancy and accuracy of IR performance metrics using Google Analytics.  相似文献   

4.
The paper presents comparative analyses of two publication point systems, The Norwegian and the in-house system from the interdisciplinary Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), used as case in the study for publications published 2006, and compares central citation-based indicators with novel publication point indicators (PPIs) that are formalized and exemplified. Two diachronic citation windows are applied: 2006-07 and 2006-08. Web of Science (WoS) as well as Google Scholar (GS) are applied to observe the cite delay and citedness for the different document types published by DIIS, journal articles, book chapters/conference papers and monographs. Journal Crown Indicator (JCI) calculations was based on WoS. Three PPIs are proposed: the Publication Point Ratio (PPR), which measures the sum of obtained publication points over the sum of the ideal points for the same set of documents; the Cumulated Publication Point Indicator (CPPI), which graphically illustrates the cumulated gain of obtained vs. ideal points, both seen as vectors; and the normalized Cumulated Publication Point Index (nCPPI) that represents the cumulated gain of publication success as index values, either graphically or as one overall score for the institution under evaluation.The case study indicates that for smaller interdisciplinary research institutions the cite delay is substantial (2–3 years to obtain a citedness of 50%) when applying WoS for articles. Applying GS implies a shorter delay and much higher citedness for all document types. Statistical significant correlations were only found between WoS and GS and the two publication point systems in between, respectively. The study demonstrates how the nCPPI can be applied to institutions as evaluation tools supplementary to JCI in various combinations, in particular when institutions include humanistic and social science disciplines.  相似文献   

5.
  相似文献   

6.
Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.  相似文献   

7.
ABSTRACT

In order to understand better and explain the practices of Google Scholar, this essay takes a rhetorical and holistic look at the search technology, language, and sociopolitical implications of the Google Scholar interface as well as the connection between Google Scholar and the actions of the Google Corporation. The relationship between Google Scholar and the academic library is also explored. In addition, the essay offers ways to encourage students to undertake this kind of critique in the information literacy classroom.  相似文献   

8.
ABSTRACT

The Google Book Search Library Project has partnered with an array of impressive libraries, including Harvard University, the University of California System, University of Michigan, and the New York Public Library. The reasons for collaborating with Google to further book digitization are different for each library. Moreover, the exact way in which these libraries will use their own digital copies has yet to be decided for many of the libraries involved. While the Google Book Search Library Project remains controversial, the Google library partners are seizing an unprecedented opportunity to amplify the scale of their pre-existing digitization initiatives.  相似文献   

9.
  相似文献   

10.
Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.  相似文献   

11.
Past studies of citation coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar do not demonstrate a consistent pattern that can be applied to the interdisciplinary mix of resources used in social work research. To determine the utility of these tools to social work researchers, an analysis of citing references to well-known social work journals was conducted. Web of Science had the fewest citing references and almost no variety in source format. Scopus provided higher citation counts, but the pattern of coverage was similar to Web of Science. Google Scholar provided substantially more citing references, but only a relatively small percentage of them were unique scholarly journal articles.The patterns of database coverage were replicated when the citations were broken out for each journal separately. The results of this analysis demonstrate the need to determine what resources constitute scholarly research and reflect the need for future researchers to consider the merits of each database before undertaking their research. This study will be of interest to scholars in library and information science as well as social work, as it facilitates a greater understanding of the strengths and limitations of each database and brings to light important considerations for conducting future research.  相似文献   

12.
ABSTRACT

Google Scholar has multiple uses as a reference tool of last resort, including citation completion, an alternative when catalogs are down, and interdisciplinary metasearching and database suggestion. During the reference desk transaction, users can be taught effective Google Scholar search techniques such as advanced search functionality and the nuances of results' groupings. In addition, reference desk interactions with Google Scholar give insight for instructional workshops.  相似文献   

13.
Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare pharmacy students’ ability to correctly answer drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google.Methods:This multicenter randomized trial compared pharmacy student responses to drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google from January to March of 2020. First- to fourth-year pharmacy students at two institutions were included. The primary outcome was the number of correct answers. Secondary outcomes were the time taken to answer the questions and differences in number of correct answers by pharmacy student year and institution.Results:The analysis included 162 participants: 52 students in the Micromedex group, 51 students in the Watson group, and 59 students in the Google group. There was a significant difference among groups in the total number of questions answered correctly (p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis revealed that participants in the Micromedex group answered more questions correctly than those in the Google group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between Micromedex and Watson groups (p=0.52) or between Watson and Google groups (p=0.22). There was also no difference in time to complete the questions among groups (p=0.72).Conclusion:Utilizing Google did not save students time and led to more incorrect answers. These findings suggest that health care educators and health sciences librarians should further reinforce training on the appropriate use of drug information resources.  相似文献   

14.
This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA.  相似文献   

15.
ABSTRACT

This article explores some of the key impacts that Google and new technologies such as Web 2.0 have had on the way people see information and information professionals and presents the argument that much of what is typically seen as negative about Google is, in fact, positive.  相似文献   

16.
ABSTRACT

This article considers the Google Librarian Central and the Google for Educators sites and related projects, such as The Literacy Project, from the search and advertising giant, and how libraries, schools, and others view their value and impact.  相似文献   

17.
ABSTRACT

Google Book Search presents an opportunity to search millions of books from the Google Library partners and publishing partners. How does metadata compare in Google Book Search and library catalogs?  相似文献   

18.
The Web of Science is no longer the only database which offers citation indexing of the social sciences. Scopus, CSA Illumina and Google Scholar are new entrants in this market. The holdings and citation records of these four databases were assessed against two sets of data one drawn from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise and the other from the International bibliography of the Social Sciences. Initially, CSA Illumina's coverage at journal title level appeared to be the most comprehensive. But when recall and average citation count was tested at article level and rankings extrapolated by submission frequency to individual journal titles, Scopus was ranked first. When issues of functionality, the quality of record processing and depth of coverage are taken into account, Scopus and Web of Science have a significant advantage over the other two databases. From this analysis, Scopus offers the best coverage from amongst these databases and could be used as an alternative to the Web of Science as a tool to evaluate the research impact in the social sciences.  相似文献   

19.
Expert Googling     
Abstract

Google is the search engine of choice for most Internet users. For a variety of reasons, librarians and other expert searchers do not always use Google to its full potential, even though it provides capabilities not possible in traditional bibliographic databases and other search engines. Applying expert searching principles and practices, such as the use of advanced search operators, information retrieval strategies, and search hedges to Google will allow health sciences librarians to find quality information on the Internet more efficiently and effectively.  相似文献   

20.
《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(3-4):191-206
SUMMARY

Buoyed by its brand name, Google News has grown from its beta stage into a popular news site with a significant share of the Internet market for “Current Events and Global News.” The success of Google News raises questions about the nature of news and even the desirability of Google's presenting news. Where does Google News fit into the myriad news resources available on the Internet and in libraries? How does Google News work? Is Google News an effective source for news research? How will Google News stand up to its competition, in particular a new wave of community news sites?  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号