Google Scholar as a source for scholarly evaluation: A bibliographic review of database errors
暂无分享,去创建一个
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar | Alberto Martín-Martín | Enrique Orduna-Malea | Alberto Martín-Martín | E. Orduña-Malea
[1] Rafael Ruiz-Pérez,et al. Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. , 2009 .
[2] Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al. A two-sided academic landscape : snapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar ( 1950-2013 ) , 2016 .
[3] Susan Gardner,et al. Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences , 2005 .
[4] at Lse,et al. ‘Maximizing The Impacts Of Your Research: A Handbook For Social Scientists’ now available to download as a PDF , 2011 .
[5] Judit Bar-Ilan,et al. Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2010, Scientometrics.
[6] A. Baneyx,et al. “Publish or Perish” as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history , 2008, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis.
[7] Juan Carlos Marcos Recio. La revolución Google Scholar. Destapando la caja de Pandora académica , 2017 .
[8] Mary Shultz,et al. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.
[9] R. Greg,et al. Notess. Scholarly Web Searching : Google Scholar and Scirus , 2005 .
[10] Hannah Rozear. Where Google Scholar stands on art: an evaluation of content coverage in online databases , 2009, Art Libraries Journal.
[11] Linda Butler. The devil is in the detail: Concerns about Vanclay's analysis of Australian journal rankings , 2011, J. Informetrics.
[12] Jim Giles,et al. Science in the web age: Start your engines , 2005, Nature.
[13] Jeffrey M. Perkel. The future of citation analysis , 2005 .
[14] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950-2013)? , 2014, ArXiv.
[15] Stephen J. Bensman. The impact factor: its place in Garfield’s thought, in science evaluation, and in library collection management , 2011, Scientometrics.
[16] Péter Jacsó,et al. Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..
[17] Richard K. Belew,et al. Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data , 2005, ArXiv.
[18] Chris Rensleigh,et al. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison , 2013, Electron. Libr..
[19] Péter Jacsó,et al. Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h‐index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia – siren songs and air‐raid sirens , 2012 .
[20] Jöran Beel,et al. Google Scholar’s Ranking Algorithm : An Introductory Overview , 2009 .
[21] Anne-Wil Harzing,et al. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013 , 2013, Scientometrics.
[22] F. W. Lancaster,et al. Testing the Calculation of a Realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for , 2008 .
[23] Jiang Li,et al. Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments , 2010, J. Informetrics.
[24] Péter Jacsó,et al. Google Scholar revisited , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..
[25] Péter Jacsó,et al. Google Scholar's Ghost Authors. , 2009 .
[26] Nisa Bakkalbasi,et al. An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment , 2005, D Lib Mag..
[27] Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al. Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? , 2017, J. Informetrics.
[28] Jonas lucio maiaa,et al. BIBlIOmeTRIC ReseaRCh ON sTRaTegy as pRaCTICe: explORaTORy ResUlTs aND sOURCe COmpaRIsON , 2016 .
[29] Debora Shaw,et al. A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources , 2008, Scientometrics.
[30] Mike Thelwall,et al. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? , 2017, Scientometrics.
[31] Michael Levine-Clark,et al. A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar , 2008 .
[32] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. Google Scholar Metrics 2014: a low cost bibliometric tool , 2014, ArXiv.
[33] Alireza Noruzi. Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes , 2005 .
[34] Jeroen Bosman,et al. Scopus reviewed and compared: the coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar , 2006 .
[35] Péter Jacsó,et al. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook , 2015, Online Inf. Rev..
[36] José Luis Ortega,et al. Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[37] Yasar Tonta,et al. Does dirty data affect google scholar citations? , 2016, ASIST.
[38] Judit Bar-Ilan,et al. Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.
[39] Anne-Wil Harzing,et al. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis , 2008 .
[40] Henk F. Moed,et al. A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[41] Péter Jacsó,et al. Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..
[42] Péter Jacsó,et al. Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..
[43] J. E. Hirsch,et al. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
[44] William H. Walters,et al. Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field , 2007, Inf. Process. Manag..
[45] Miguel A. García-Pérez,et al. Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[46] Joann M. Wleklinski,et al. Studying google scholar: Wall to wall coverage? , 2005 .
[47] P. Jacsó. As we may search : Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases , 2005 .
[48] Bruce Walcott,et al. Big news , 2005, IEEE Potentials.
[49] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter , 2016, ArXiv.
[50] Sandra L. De Groote,et al. Google Scholar versions: do more versions of an article mean greater impact? , 2014, Libr. Hi Tech.
[51] Lokman I. Meho,et al. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[52] Péter Jacsó. Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism , 2012, Scientometrics.
[53] Ben Wooliscroft,et al. Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index , 2009 .
[54] Daniel Pauly,et al. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service , 2005 .
[55] Neal R Haddaway,et al. The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching , 2015, PloS one.
[56] Bruce White. Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source , 2006 .
[57] Judit Bar-Ilan,et al. An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..
[58] Péter Jacsó,et al. Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish software , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..
[59] Chris Rensleigh,et al. Content versus quality : a Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar comparison , 2011 .
[60] Lokman I. Meho,et al. Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science , 2007, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
[61] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. The lost academic home: institutional affiliation links in Google Scholar Citations , 2017, Online Inf. Rev..
[62] Mark Sanderson,et al. Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[63] Péter Jacsó,et al. Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late? , 2012 .
[64] Péter Jacsó,et al. Google Scholar duped and deduped – the aura of “robometrics” , 2011 .
[65] Anne-Wil Harzing,et al. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.
[66] Andreas Thor,et al. The calculation of the single publication h index and related performances measures: A Web application based on Google Scholar data , 2011, Online Inf. Rev..
[67] Judith Wusteman,et al. Putting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study , 2007, Program.
[68] Declan Butler,et al. Science searches shift up a gear as Google starts Scholar engine , 2004, Nature.
[69] Péter Jacsó,et al. Comparison and Analysis of the Citedness Scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar , 2005, ICADL.
[70] Alexander Dilger,et al. A citation-based ranking of German-speaking researchers in business administration with data of Google Scholar , 2013 .
[71] Isidro F. Aguillo. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.
[72] Jerome K. Vanclay,et al. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? , 2011, Scientometrics.
[73] Joost C. F. de Winter,et al. The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study , 2013, Scientometrics.
[74] Péter Jacsó,et al. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..