Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
-
Upload
jibs-user-group -
Category
Education
-
view
2.144 -
download
12
description
Transcript of Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
![Page 1: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Google ScholarCan it really be used for bibliometrics?
Isobel Stark & Michael WhittonJune 2011
![Page 2: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Google Scholar
2
•Historical background?
–Google Scholar released (in beta) in 2004
–Not the first freely available citation database (CiteSeer, Scirus, etc)
–Not subject specific
• Is it a viable alternative to ‘traditional’ citation databases such as Web of Science?
![Page 3: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Pros of Google Scholar
3
• Easy to access and free
• Indexes a wide range of articles
–Especially Law, Humanities, Social Sciences
• Can find a wider range of metrics
•Metrics are generally a higher number
![Page 4: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Cons of Google Scholar
4
•Questionable data
• Lack of de-duplication
•Gaps
• Relies on algorithms
•Not designed for popular bibliometric measures
–Requires add-ons to calculate h-index etc.
![Page 5: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Recommended services (h-index on GS)
5
•Quadsearch (Any browser)
• Scholar H-index Calculator (Mozilla Firefox)
• Scholarometer (Mozilla Firefox/Google Chrome)
• Publish or Perish (Separate Application)
![Page 6: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
How our researchers use it
10
• CVs and bids for funding
• Preferred by Medicine over InCites
• Factsheet for “Finding your h-index in Google Scholar” is very popular
– 6,764 visits in the last year
– To compare WoS h-Index guide is 1,559 and Impact Factors 1,045
![Page 11: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
From the literature …
11
• Bar-Illan (2008) – Israeli highly cited researchers
–Significant differences from WoS and Scopus
–Metrics can be higher (computer science), similar or lower (physics)
• Jasco (2008)
– Problems of missing & wrong authors
– Prolific authors F Password & M Profile
–Specific problems often resolved
![Page 12: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Subject specific studies
12
• Franceshet (2009) – Computer Science
–Google Scholar metrics are much higher
–Significant correlation (but varies by type of metric)
– Importance of proceedings
• Levine-Clark (2009) – Social Sciences
–Significant value of using Google Scholar in addition to WoS
–Significant value in journals not indexed by WoS & coverage of books
![Page 13: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Subject specific studies …
13
• Lee (2009) – Neurosurgery
–Significant correlation between Google Scholar and Scopus
•Mingers (2010) – Business & Management
– Lack of reliability and transparency of Google Scholar, but potential for a more comprehensive and less subject dependant analysis.
![Page 14: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The h-index: WoS vs Google Scholar
14
• Prof. Nigel Shadbolt (Computer Science)
–WoS: 16
–Google Scholar: 23
•Dr Simon Coles (Chemistry)
–WoS: 36
–Google Scholar 22
![Page 15: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The h-index: WoS vs Google Scholar …
15
• Prof. Sally Brailsford (Management)
–WoS: 9
–Google Scholar: 13
• Prof. Christian Ottensmeier (Medicine)
–WoS: 19
–Google Scholar: 19
![Page 16: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The h-index: WoS vs Google Scholar …
16
• Prof. Jane Falkingham (Social Sciences)
–WoS: 7
–Google Scholar: 23
•Dr Joanna Sofaer (Archaeology)
–WoS: 2
–Google Scholar: 9
![Page 17: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Supporting bibliometrics
17
• Library research guides
– www.soton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics
•Deskside training
– 1-2-1 training for staff & research postgraduates
• Planned session for research postgraduates
– delivered through the Graduate School training programme
![Page 18: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Conclusions
18
• Some variation by subject
• Significant issues with quality of the data
• Can be useful to use in addition to Web of Science and/or Scopus
![Page 19: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
References
19
• BAR-ILAN, J. 2008. Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, 257-271.
• FRANCESCHET, M. 2009. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83, 243-258.
• JACSO, P. 2008. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32, 437-452.
![Page 20: Google Scholar for Bibliometrics](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081505/55645c9cd8b42aa2398b4743/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
References …
20
• LEVINE-CLARK, M. & GIL, E. 2009. A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33, 986-996.
• LEE, J., KRAUS, K. L. & COULDWELL, W. T. 2009. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111, 387-392.
•MINGERS, J. & LIPITAKIS, E. A. E. C. G. 2010. Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85, 613-625.