Other academic search engines

Ortega, José Luis

doi:10.1533/9781780634722.143

Cited by 31 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the modern information society, digital libraries and academic search engines have emerged as two important online scholarly information sources. They are different in multiple aspects, namely, aggregation-based library databases vs crawling web system as a source of data, broad vs specific discipline coverage, specific and sophisticated users vs a broad and heterogeneous population and well-defined structure vs informal structure (Ortega, 2014). Much of research over digital libraries and academic search engines has revolved around comparative evaluations on the coverage of scholarly literature (Neuhaus et al , 2006), the quality of search results (Georgas, 2015), citation correctness or accuracy (Martin-Martin et al , 2018) and systems performance (Bates et al , 2017; Brophy and Bawden, 2005).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples include Microsoft Academic Search, Google Scholar, Baidu Scholar, 360 Scholar Search, etc. They allow free and easy access to scientific literature and publisher-independent information on the web (Ortega, 2014). Some academic search engines, such as Google Scholar that have gained wide acceptance, are very prevalent and many university libraries have incorporated them into the alphabet lists of library search catalogs (Hartman and Mullen, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative analysis on digital libraries and academic search engines from the dual-route perspective

Cao

Zhang

Zha

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Digital libraries and academic search engines have developed as two important online scholarly information sources with different features. The purpose of this study is to compare digital libraries and academic search engines from the perspective of the dual-route model. Design/methodology/approach Research hypotheses were developed. Potential participants were recruited to answer an online survey distributing at Chinese social media out of which 251 responses were deemed to be valid and used for data analysis. The paired samples t-test was used to compare the means. Findings Both information quality (central route) and source credibility (peripheral route) of digital libraries are significantly higher than those of academic search engines, while there is no significant difference between digital libraries and academic search engines in terms of affinity (peripheral route). Practical implications In the digital information society, the important status of digital libraries as conventional information sources should be spread by necessary measures. Academic search engines can act as complementary online information sources for seeking academic information rather than the substitute for digital libraries. Practitioners of digital libraries should value the complementary role of academic search engines and encourage users to use academic search engines while emphasizing the importance of digital libraries as conventional information sources. Originality/value According to the dual-route model, this study compares digital libraries and academic search engines in terms of information quality, source credibility and affinity, which the authors believe presents a new lens for digital libraries research and practice alike.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative analysis on digital libraries and academic search engines from the dual-route perspective

Cao

Zhang

Zha

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This limitation is, however, not exclusive to MA. Most academic search engines are rather opaque about the sources they cover (Ortega, 2014) and, according to Jacsό (2005), this is also true for GS.…”

Section: Microsoft Academic As a Citation Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

Is Microsoft Academic a viable citation source for ranking marketing journals?

Moussa¹

2019

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the viability of the scholarly search engine Microsoft Academic (MA) as a citation source for evaluating/ranking marketing journals. Design/methodology/approach This study performs a comparison between MA and Google Scholar (GS) in terms of journal coverage, h-index values and journal rankings. Findings Findings indicate that: MA (vs GS) covers 96.80 percent (vs 97.87 percent) of the assessed 94 marketing-focused journals; the MA-based h-index exhibits values that are 35.45 percent lower than the GS-based h-index; and that the MA-based ranking and the GS-based ranking are highly consistent. Based on these findings, MA seems to constitute a rather viable citation source for assessing a marketing journal’s impact. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on one discipline, that is, marketing. Originality/value This study identifies some issues that would need to be fixed by the MA’s development team. It recommends some further enhancements with respect to journal title entry, publication year allocation and field classification. It also provides two up-to-date rankings for more than 90 marketing-focused journals based on actual cites (October 2018) of articles published between 2013 and 2017.

show abstract

“…Finally, there are also academic profiles based on the information available in an academic search engine (Ortega, 2014). These profiles can be created either automatically, like in AMiner (https://aminer.org) or the new Microsoft Academic (https://academic.microsoft.com), or manually, like in GSC (https://scholar.google.com/citations).…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%