Inefficiency and Bias of Search Engines in Retrieving References Containing Scientific Names of Fossil Amphibians

Retrieval efficiencies of paper-based references in journals and other serials containing 10 scientific names of fossil amphibians were determined for seven major search engines. Retrievals were compared to the number of references obtained covering the period 1895—2006 by a Comprehensive Search. The latter was primarily a traditional library-based search which involved intensive work from 2002—2007. Only a few references originally obtained by search engines were included. Retrieval efficiencies were calculated by comparison to the number obtained through the Comprehensive Search (assumed to be 100%). All percent retrievals were quite low (mean = 11.3%, range = 4.0—22.9%). For all seven search engines combined (duplicate references excluded), the percent retrieval was only 40.7%. There was also retrieval inefficiency and bias of the search engines in: sampling over time, the top five journals containing the most references, the top five most prolific authors, and non-English references. Consequently, all seven search engines were unsatisfactory for retrieval of references for our scientific research.

[1]  A. Dubois.  Naming taxa from cladograms: some confusions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications , 2007, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[2]  Mike Nicholls,et al.  On the internet , 2004, Biological Psychiatry.

[3]  Michael A. Veronin,et al.  Where Are They Now? A Case Study of Health-related Web Site Attrition , 2002, Journal of medical Internet research.

[4]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  On the overlap, the precision and estimated recall of search engines. A case study of the query “Erdos” , 1998, Scientometrics.

[5]  Robert L. Carroll,et al.  Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution , 1988 .

[6]  Giles,et al.  Searching the world wide Web , 1998, Science.

[7]  Nicholas G. Tomaiuolo,et al.  An analysis of Internet search engines: assessment of over 200 search queries , 1996 .

[8]  E. C. Case,et al.  Revision of the Amphibia and Pisces of the Permian of North America , 2012 .

[9]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Accessibility of information on the web , 1999, Nature.

[10]  Clifford Stoll,et al.  High-Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian , 1999 .

[11]  D. Dilkes,et al.  Biomechanics of the vertebrae and associated osteoderms of the Early Permian amphibian Cacops aspidephorus , 2007 .

[12]  S. Williston.  Broiliellus, a New Genus of Amphibians from the Permian of Texas , 1914, The Journal of Geology.

[13]  R. Dellavalle,et al.  Going, Going, Gone: Lost Internet References , 2003, Science.

[14]  E. C. Olson.  Fayella chickashaensis; The Dissorophoidea and the Permian Terrestrial Radiations , 1972 .

[15]  R. E. D. Mar.  Longiscitula houghae; a new genus of dissorophid amphibian from the Permian of Texas / Robert E. DeMar, Asst. Professor of Geology, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle Campus. , 1966 .

[16]  P. Bouchet,et al.  Supraspecific names of molluscs : a quantitative review , 1992 .

[17]  S. Williston.  Cacops, Desmospondylus; new genera of Permian vertebrates , 1910 .

[18]  Clifford Stoll,et al.  Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway , 1995 .

[19]  Alain Dubois,et al.  Should internet sites be mentioned in the bibliographies of scientific publications , 2003 .

[20]  P. Bouchet,et al.  The lottery of bibliographical databases: a reply to Edwards & Thorne , 1993 .