Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields

Google Scholar, a widely used academic search engine, plays a major role in finding free full-text versions of articles. But little is known about the sources of full-text files in Google Scholar. The aim of the study was to find out about the sources of full-text items and to look at subject differences in terms of number of versions, times cited, rate of open access availability and sources of full-text files. Three queries were created for each of 277 minor subject categories of Scopus. The queries were searched in Google Scholar and the first ten hits for each query were analyzed. Citations and patents were excluded from the results and the time frame was limited to 2004–2014. Results showed that 61.1 % of articles were accessible in full-text in Google Scholar; 80.8 % of full-text articles were publisher versions and 69.2 % of full-text articles were PDF. There was a significant difference between the means of times cited of full text items and non-full-text items. The highest rate of full text availability for articles belonged to life science (66.9 %). Publishers’ websites were the main source of bibliographic information for non-full-text articles. For full-text articles, educational (edu, ac.xx etc.) and org domains were top two sources of full text files. ResearchGate was the top single website providing full-text files (10.5 % of full-text articles).

[1]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013 , 2013, Scientometrics.

[2]  Laura Bowering Mullen,et al.  Google Scholar and Academic Libraries: An Update , 2008 .

[3]  KoushaKayvan,et al.  Google Scholar citations and Google Web-URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis , 2007 .

[4]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950-2013)? , 2014, ArXiv.

[5]  Marilyn Christianson,et al.  Ecology Articles in Google Scholar: Levels of Access to Articles in Core Journals. , 2007, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.

[6]  Sandra L. De Groote,et al.  Google Scholar versions: do more versions of an article mean greater impact? , 2014, Libr. Hi Tech.

[7]  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..

[8]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline , 2012, ArXiv.

[9]  K. Antelman.  Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? , 2004 .

[10]  Cecelia M. Brown.  The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[12]  T. Cothran.  Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study , 2011 .

[13]  B. Björk,et al.  Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009 , 2010, PloS one.

[14]  Joost C. F. de Winter,et al.  The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study , 2013, Scientometrics.

[15]  William H. Walters,et al.  Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field , 2007, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Charles Lyons,et al.  An Overview of Open Access in the Fields of Business and Management , 2011 .

[17]  Gema Bueno-de-la-Fuente,et al.  Prospect for development of Open Access in Argentina , 2013 .

[18]  Aaron Lercher,et al.  A Survey of Attitudes about Digital Repositories among Faculty at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. , 2008 .

[19]  Madian Khabsa,et al.  Digital commons , 2020, Internet Policy Rev..

[20]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines , 2008, Scientometrics.

[21]  A. Ben Wagner,et al.  Open Access Citation Advantage: An Annotated Bibliography. , 2010, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.

[22]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The citation advantage of open-access articles , 2008 .

[23]  A. N. Zainab,et al.  Google Scholar as a source for citation and impact analysis for a non-ISI indexed medical journal , 2010 .

[24]  Isidro F. Aguillo.  Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.

[25]  P. Zhou,et al.  Mimola Reference , 1989 .

[26]  Alireza Noruzi.  Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes , 2005 .

[27]  Else Nygren,et al.  Metalib and Google Scholar: a user study , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..

[28]  Chris Neuhaus,et al.  The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study , 2006 .

[29]  Jared L. Howland,et al.  How Scholarly Is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases , 2009 .

[30]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.

[32]  Ángel Borrego,et al.  A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior , 2010 .

[33]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[34]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Google Scholar revisited , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[35]  M. Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar citations and Google Web-URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis , 2007 .

[36]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.