Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source

White, Bruce Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 2006, vol. 50, n. 1, pp. 11-24. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
 PDF
TNZLIMJOctober2006v50i01-11-24.pdf
Download (190kB) | Preview

English abstract

Since its introduction in mid 2004 the Google Scholar search engine has been the subject of considerable interest within the library community and has been the subject of both excitement and criticism. While applauding its ambitious scope various writers have pointed out its shortcomings through unfavourable comparisons with the traditional scholarly databases. This article summarises the debate and then critically examines Google Scholar through a number of practical examples concluding that in terms of its coverage and functionality it outperforms traditional databases in locating a major portion of the available information.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Google Scholar, Search Engines, Scholarly Information, New Zealand
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
Depositing user: Bruce White
Date deposited: 09 Nov 2006
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:05
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/8344

References

Bates, M. E. (2005). You're searching what?!? Econtent, 28(11), 31.

Brophy, J., & Bawden, D. (2005). Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6).

Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8).

Gorman, G. E. (2006). Giving way to Google. Online Information Review, 30(2), 97-99.

Jacsó, P. (2005a). As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537.

Jacsó, P. (2005b). Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208 - 214.

Jacsó, P. (2006a). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3).

Jacsó, P. (2006b). Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs. Online Information Review, 30(2).

Kesselman, M. (2005). Google Scholar™ and libraries: point/counterpoint. Reference Services Review, 33(4), 380-387.

M.I.T. Libraries. (2005, 28 August ). Making Google Scholar work for you. Retrieved 26 June 2006, from http://libraries.mit.edu/help/google-scholar/

MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966). On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100, 603-609.

Mann, T. (1993). Library research models : a guide to classification, cataloging, and computers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Markland, M. (2005). Does the student's love of the search engine mean that high quality online academic resources are being missed? Performance Measurement and Metrics, 6(1).

Meltzer, E. (2005, 15 August 2005). UC libraries use of Google Scholar. from http://www.cdlib.org/inside/assess/evaluation_activities/docs/2005/googleScholar_summary_0805.pdf

Tennant, R. (2005). Google, the naked emperor. Library Journal, 130(13), 29-29.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS