Google Scholar Users and User Behaviors: An Exploratory Study

Herrera, Gail

doi:10.5860/crl-125rl

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, criticisms of this tool include limited advanced search functionality, incomplete or inaccurate metadata, inflated citation counts, lack of usage statistics, and inconsistent coverage across disciplines. 8 There is also a lack of clarity regarding what GS actually indexes, and students are often unaware that GS's preferences must be manually set to link to libraries' resources. Because of this, students are often confused by the request to pay for articles or the need to click through to a library website.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paths of Discovery: Comparing the Search Effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and Conventional Library Resources

Asher

Duke²,

Wilson³

2013

CRL

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, researchers at Bucknell University and Illinois Wesleyan University compared the search efficacy of Serial Solutions Summon, EBSCO Discovery Service, Google Scholar, and conventional library databases. Using a mixed-methods approach, qualitative and quantitative data were gathered on students' usage of these tools. Regardless of the search system, students exhibited a marked inability to effectively evaluate sources and a heavy reliance on default search settings. This article describes these results and makes recommendations for libraries considering these tools.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paths of Discovery: Comparing the Search Effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and Conventional Library Resources

Asher

Duke²,

Wilson³

2013

CRL

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, despite the changing informational behaviour of both students and researchers, the use of Google is instrumental in accessing scholarly information. Herrera (2011) analysed the University of Mississippi's library logs, and revealed that the percentage of clicks originating from Google Scholar had grown from 4% in 2006 to 27% in 2009. This phenomenon is confirmed in Burns' doctoral thesis (2013), which demonstrated the predominance of the university when providing full text access to researchers using Google Scholar as their starting point in the search for scholarly information.…”

Section: Visibility Of the Repositories On The Web And In Google Searmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

Orduña-Malea

López-Cózar

2014

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access (OA), determining their presence and impact on the Web is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to OA, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

show abstract

“…It is difficult to determine GS market share because "GS usage information is not available to participating institutions or libraries" (Herrera, 2011).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

RAMP – the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal

OBrien

Arlitsch

Mixter

et al. 2017

LHT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download. Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present data that begin to detail the deficiencies of log file analytics reporting methods that are commonly built into institutional repository (IR) platforms. The authors propose a new method for collecting and reporting IR item download metrics. This paper introduces a web service prototype that captures activity that current analytics methods are likely to either miss or over-report. Design/methodology/approach -Data were extracted from DSpace Solr logs of an IR and were cross-referenced with Google Analytics and Google Search Console data to directly compare Citable Content Downloads recorded by each method.Findings -This study provides evidence that log file analytics data appear to grossly over-report due to traffic from robots that are difficult to identify and screen. The study also introduces a proof-of-concept prototype that makes the research method easily accessible to IR managers who seek accurate counts of Citable Content Downloads.Research limitations/implications -The method described in this paper does not account for direct access to Citable Content Downloads that originate outside Google Search properties. Originality/value -This paper proposes that IR managers adopt a new reporting framework that classifies IR page views and download activity into three categories that communicate metrics about user activity related to the research process. It also proposes that IR managers rely on a hybrid of existing Google Services to improve reporting of Citable Content Downloads and offers a prototype web service where IR managers can test results for their repositories.

show abstract

Google Scholar Users and User Behaviors: An Exploratory Study

Cited by 27 publications

References 25 publications

Paths of Discovery: Comparing the Search Effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and Conventional Library Resources

Paths of Discovery: Comparing the Search Effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and Conventional Library Resources

The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

RAMP – the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About