Google Scholar与PubMed搜索比较

Google Scholar是综合性的搜索引擎,PubMed是专业性的搜索数据库,两个系统的共同点是都能搜索学术文章,但由于两者拥有不相同的搜索数据及搜索方式的极不相同,返回的结果往往不同。通过对Google Scholar和PubMed做各种不同的搜索试验,对搜索结果进行比较和对比,得出两个系统之间的不同之处,发现造成这些不同的原因,以更清晰地了解Google Scholar和PubMed各自的搜索能力。     

Google Scholar对MEDLINE数据库的检索性能测评

文章以Google Scholar检索MEDLINE数据的检索结果和PubMed的检索结果进行对比分析,以帮助用户正确认识使用Google Scholar.     

Google Scholar与图书馆的文献传递服务

文章首先探讨了GoogleScholar揭示和传递学术信息的过程,在此基础上分析了Google Scholar对文献传递服务形成的挑战和不足,总结了其对文献传递服务发展的启示,包括建立联合目录和统一的检索系统、加入Google Scholar的图书馆链接计划、改进文献传递系统、适当降低文献传递成本.     

学术搜索引擎Google Scholar与Scirus使用技巧

结合大量实例介绍了Google Scholar（谷歌学术）、SCIRUS这两个学术搜索引擎的特色及实用的检索技巧。     

Google Scholar的学术特性及对图书馆参考咨询服务的影响

文章阐述Google Scholar的学术特性,并探讨了Google Scholar的飞速发展对图书馆的参考咨询服务所带来的机遇及挑战。     

Changes at Google Scholar: A Conversation with Anurag Acharya

ABSTRACT

Provides new insights into the growth and development of Google Scholar, based on an interview with its designer, Anurag Acharya.     

Google Scholar的利用与评价

Google Scho1ar是一项具有开创性的互联网学术文献搜索服务。介绍了其概况、使用方法及用途，并对其进行了简要的评价。强调中国学者应早日了解并充分利用这一重要工具，为学术工作及研究服务。     

国外Google Scholar研究现状的调研与分析

以引文数据库Web of Science以及Scopus为文献源,采用文献计量学的方法,针对2004年至今的以Google Scholar为研究主题的文献,从文献量及年代分布、文献类型及语种、作者、期刊、文献被引和主题等方面进行分析,揭示Google Scholar的研究现状。     

Web of Science和Google Scholar引文检索功能比较

文章从检索范围、检索方法、检索结果以及检索效果等方面对WebofScience和GoogleScholar的引文检索功能进行了比较分析,指出它们各自的优势和不足。     

A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science,Scopus, and Google Scholar

This article presents the results of a comparative study of Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS) for a set of 15 business and economics journals. Citations from the three sources were analyzed to determine whether one source is better than another, or whether a new database such as Scopus, or a free database such as GS could replace WoS. The authors concluded that scholars might want to use alternative tools collectively to get a more complete picture of the scholarly impact of an article.     

Google Scholar,Web of Science,and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

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.     

从引文分析的角度比较Google Scholar与Web of Science的优势与不足

从期刊被引频次的角度出发,采取实证研究的方法,选取国际权威的引文数据库Web of Science和著名的搜索引擎Google Scholar,以<美国信息科学和技术学会杂志>为文献源,对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较和探讨.     

两类学术评价指标比较研究——以影响因子和谷歌学术指标期刊评价为观察视角

[目的/意义]学术评价对整个学术生态系统的发展具有重要意义。以影响因子和谷歌学术指标为视角,跟踪国内外学术评价指标发展的新动态,思考和探索学术评价指标优化发展的可能方向。[方法/过程]分别选取h5指数排名前50的中英文出版物并查询对应影响因子,分析并检验h5指数与影响因子的关系;对比中英文出版物在学科分布、时间范围、"被引"统计标准等方面的异同和优缺点,总结学术评价指标应考虑的诸多因素。从评价主体、评价对象等维度对网络环境下新的学术评价方式进行探索,对Altmetrics、RCR、PubPeer的创新性学术评价实践进行案例分析。[结果/结论]学术评价体系系统而复杂,与学术出版、交流与传播、保存利用等各环节密切关联,科学合理的评价体系应平衡数量与质量、保持客观中立、兼顾内容与形式,应分层次、多维度、全方位进行学术评价。     

利用Google Scholar自动统计引文年度被引频次的方法

首先阐述在数字科研时代,在学术交流渠道多元化、网络化的环境下,谷歌学术搜索(Google Scholar)可作为计算机科学领域引文分析的数据源的原因。然后,对目前自动化地采集Google Scholar的引文数据的现状进行概述;进而以统计图灵奖获得者所发表论文的年度引文频次为例,着重阐述如何利用Google Scholar引擎的引文搜索功能设计相关程序,实现对论文各年度被引频次的自动统计;最后,将该方法与Web of Science进行比较,并对实现过程中遇到的问题进行总结。     

中文网络灰色文献分布探析——基于Google Scholar的样本分析

鉴于传统引文索引数据库的局限性,借鉴相关研究的做法,尝试利用Google Scholar抽样调查中文网络灰色文献的分布特征.验证这一工具可用性的同时,发现样本中灰色文献的整体开发利用水平不高,体现在:①研究和管理机构偏少;②灰色文献所占比例(或者说可见性)偏低;③样本灰色文献的半衰期与常规文献差别不大;④灰色文献来源机构单一.样本所得结论的适用范围还有待进一步研究验证.     

Google Scholar Usage: An Academic Library's Experience

Google Scholar is a free service that provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly works and to connect patrons with the resources libraries provide. The researchers in this study analyzed Google Scholar usage data from 2006 for three library tools at San Francisco State University: SFX link resolver, Web Access Management proxy server, and ILLiad interlibrary loan server. Overall, the data suggested that Google Scholar had become a very useful resource in the library and was a significant addition to the library's collection of research databases. SFX data revealed requests from Google Scholar grew ten-fold from 2006 to 2011, and that Google Scholar became the top-ranked SFX source for requests in 2011. Library patrons favored Google Scholar over San Francisco State University's federated search tool, MetaLib, and it has become an important source for interlibrary loan requests. Analysis of San Francisco State University usage data will assist other libraries in their decisions about the implementation of Google Scholar.     

Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines

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.     

Attitudes of OhioLINK Librarians Toward Google Scholar

ABSTRACT

Almost three years after Google Scholar's inception, only a third of Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK) member libraries link to it from their Web sites. This article reports the results of a July 2007 survey of OhioLINK academic librarians, conducted to find out about their attitudes and current practices regarding promotion of Google Scholar. It compares the findings about placement of Google Scholar on Web sites and inclusion in library instruction with previous research, and includes recommendations for libraries about Google Scholar.     

Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis

This article uses Google Scholar (GS) as a source of data to analyse Open Access (OA) levels across all countries and fields of research. All articles and reviews with a DOI and published in 2009 or 2014 and covered by the three main citation indexes in the Web of Science (2,269,022 documents) were selected for study. The links to freely available versions of these documents displayed in GS were collected. To differentiate between more reliable (sustainable and legal) forms of access and less reliable ones, the data extracted from GS was combined with information available in DOAJ, CrossRef, OpenDOAR, and ROAR. This allowed us to distinguish the percentage of documents in our sample that are made OA by the publisher (23.1%, including Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, and Bronze OA) from those available as Green OA (17.6%), and those available from other sources (40.6%, mainly due to ResearchGate). The data shows an overall free availability of 54.6%, with important differences at the country and subject category levels. The data extracted from GS yielded very similar results to those found by other studies that analysed similar samples of documents, but employed different methods to find evidence of OA, thus suggesting a relative consistency among methods.     

PubMed Instruction for Medical Students: Searching for a Better Way

In 2007, Duke University Medical Center Library instituted an interactive, online PubMed tutorial and quiz for medical students to replace an in-person lecture. This article describes the events leading to this educational paradigm shift and how the tutorial was implemented. Important concerns in the switch to an online approach to PubMed training were student satisfaction and the extent to which searching skills would improve. To determine the effectiveness of the online model, two years of student quizzes and evaluations were examined. Results indicate that students benefit from and appreciate the interactive tutorial.