Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature

Halevi, Gali; Moed, Henk F.; Bar‐Ilan, Judit

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005

Cited by 330 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is easily possible for reviewers to update these assessments frequently by identifying changes in the qualities of the single search systems or adding previously unexamined search systems to the comparison set. Until now, studies have largely examined the suitability of search systems for certain scholarly tasks for individual systems or by comparing a few systems . Our methods allowed a comprehensive review of many different search systems.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Until now, studies have largely examined the suitability of search systems for certain scholarly tasks for individual systems or by comparing a few systems. 33,50,95 Our methods allowed a comprehensive review of many different search systems. As a result we found significant performance differences among the search engines examined, confirming that no single search system is perfect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Gusenbauer

Haddaway

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

1,137

608

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query‐based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Gusenbauer

Haddaway

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

1,137

608

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also has wider coverage of academic journals (Moed & Visser, 2008;Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Google Scholar has even wider coverage but lacks an effective classification scheme and a method to automatically download all papers from a field (Halevi, Moed, & Bar-Ilan, 2017). The new Microsoft Academic has similar coverage to Google Scholar but also lacks an effective field classification scheme (Harzing & Alakangas, 2017;Hug, Ochsner, & Brändle, 2017).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?

Thelwall

2017

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reader counts from the social reference sharing site Mendeley are known to be valuable for early research evaluation. They have strong correlations with citation counts for journal articles but appear about a year before them. There are disciplinary differences in the value of Mendeley reader counts but systematic evidence is needed at the level of narrow fields to reveal its extent. In response, this article compares Mendeley reader counts with Scopus citation counts for journal articles from 2012 in 325 narrow Scopus fields. Despite strong positive correlations in most fields, averaging 0.671, the correlations in some fields are as weak as 0.255. Technical reasons explain most weaker correlations, suggesting that the underlying relationship is almost always strong. The exceptions are caused by unusually high educational or professional use or topics of interest within countries that avoid Mendeley. The findings suggest that if care is taken then Mendeley reader counts can be used for early citation impact evidence in almost all fields and for related impact in some of the remainder. As an additional application of the results, cross-checking with Mendeley data can be used to identify indexing anomalies in citation databases.

show abstract

“…Google scholar is a well utilized and robust index of academic literature from multiple disciplines that concern agriculture, including the social sciences and life sciences [80]. Google Scholar has some disadvantages compared to more controlled databases, including full-text rather than field-level search, lack of controlled vocabulary [81] and duplicated-records [82]. However, the coverage and accuracy has greatly improved over time and the index has some important advantages.…”

Section: Indicators Of Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues and Prospects for the Sustainable Use and Conservation of Cultivated Vegetable Diversity for More Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional vegetables are key assets for supporting more nutrition-sensitive agriculture under climate change as many have lower water requirements, adaptation to poor quality soils, higher resistance to pests and diseases, and higher nutritional values as compared to global vegetables. The effective use of traditional vegetables can be challenged however by lack of information and poor conservation status. This study reviewed the uses, growth forms and geographic origins of cultivated vegetables worldwide and the levels of research, ex situ conservation, and documentation they have received in order to identify gaps and priorities for supporting more effective use of global vegetable diversity. A total of 1097 vegetables were identified in a review of the Mansfeld Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Plants, including species used for leaves (n = 495), multiple vegetative parts (n = 227), roots (n = 204), fruits or seeds (n = 90), and other parts like flowers, inflorescences, and stems (n = 81). Root vegetables have received significantly less research attention than other types of vegetable. Therophytes (annuals) have received significantly more attention from research and conservation efforts than vegetables with other growth forms, while vegetables originating in Africa (n = 406) and the Asian-Pacific region (n = 165) are notably neglected. Documentation for most vegetable species is poor and the conservation of many vegetables is largely realized on farm through continued use. Supportive policies are needed to advance research, conservation, and documentation of neglected vegetable species to protect and further their role in nutrition-sensitive agriculture.

show abstract

Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature

Cited by 330 publications

References 65 publications

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?

Issues and Prospects for the Sustainable Use and Conservation of Cultivated Vegetable Diversity for More Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About