Finding Chemistry Information using Google Scholar: A Comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service

Levine-Clark, Michael and Kraus, Joseph Finding Chemistry Information using Google Scholar: A Comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service., 2006 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of Levine-Clark_Kraus.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
Levine-Clark_Kraus.pdf
Download (538kB) | Preview

English abstract

Since its introduction in November 2004, Google Scholar has been the subject of considerable discussion among librarians. Though there has been much concern about the lack of transparency of the product, there has been relatively little direct comparison between Google Scholar and traditional library resources. This study compares Google Scholar and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) as resources for finding chemistry information. Of the 702 records found in six different searches, 65.1% were in Google Scholar and 45.1% were in CAS. Of these, 55.0% were unique to Google Scholar, 34.9% were unique to CAS, and 10.1% overlapped. When each record found was searched by title in the two databases, the figures change, with 79.5% in Google Scholar, 85.6% in CAS, and 65.1% overlapping. Based on this, researchers are more likely to find known published information through CAS than in Google Scholar. Results vary by type of search, type of resource, and date. For many types of searching, CAS performs significantly better than Google Scholar. This is especially true for searches on compounds or a personal name, both of which take advantage of advanced search features in CAS. For simple keyword searches, Google Scholar tends to perform better, most likely because Google Scholar searches through the full text of journal articles, while a keyword search through CAS only finds abstract and index terms.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Google, Google Scholar, SciFinder Scholar, Chemical Abstracts Service, CAS
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HP. e-resources.
Depositing user: Joseph Kraus
Date deposited: 01 Feb 2007
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:06
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/8896

References

About Google Scholar, http://scholar.google.com/scholar/about.html (accessed October 26, 2006).

Ibid.

Dean Giustini and Eugene Barsky, “A Look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: Comparisons and Recommendations,” The Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association des Bibliotheques de la Santé du Canada 26, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 86.

Marian Burright, “Google Scholar – Science & Technology,” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 45 (Winter 2006), http://www.istl.org/06-winter/databases2.html (accessed October 30, 2006).

About CAS, http://www.cas.org/about.html (accessed October 26, 2006).

D.D. Ridley, Information Retrieval: SciFinder and SciFinder Scholar. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Recent searches on LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts turned up 60 and 138 results respectively (October 30, 2006).

Laura Bowering Mullen and Karen A. Hartman, “Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 67, no. 2 (March 2006): 106-122.

Maurice C. York, “Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10 no. 3/4 (2005): 117-133.

Jill E. Grogg and Christine L. Ferguson, “OpenURL Linking with Google SCHOLAR,” Searcher 13, no. 9 (October 2005): 39-46.

Martin Kesselman and Sarah Barbara Watstein, “Google Scholar and Libraries: Point/Counterpoint,” Reference Services Review 33, no. 4 (2005): 380-387.

Jeffrey Pomerantz, “Google Scholar and 100 Percent Availability of Information,” Information Technology and Libraries 25, no. 2 (2006): 52-56.

See, for example, Burright; Laura B. Cohen, “Finding Scholarly Content on the Web: From Google Scholar to RSS Feeds,” Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries 42, Special Issue (2005): 7-17; Giustini and Barsky, 85-89; Peter Jascó, “Savvy Searching: Google Scholar: the Pros and Cons,” Online Information Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 208-214; Martin Myhill, “The Advisor Reviews . . . Google Scholar,” The Charleston Advisor 6, no. 4 (April 2005), http://www.charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=225 (accessed 23 may, 2006); Greg R. Notess, “Scholarly Web Searching: Google Scholar and Scirus,” Online 29, no. 4 (July/August 2005): 39-41; Mick O’Leary, “Google Scholar,” Information Today 22, no. 7 (July/August 2005): 35, 39; Kathryn Skhal and Rita Vine, “Google Scholar,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 94, no. 1 (January 2006): 97-99 Roy Tennant, “Google, the Naked Emperor,” Library Journal 130, no. 13 (August 2005): 29; and Tennant, “Is Metasearching Dead?,” Library Journal 130, no. 12 (July 2005): 28.

Rita Vine, “Google Scholar Gets Better at Indexing PubMed Content, but It’s Still Several Months Behind,” SiteLines, http://www.workingfaster.com/sitelines/archives/2006_01.html#000365 (accessed May 23, 2006); Burright.

Chuck Hamaker and Brad Spry, “Key Issue: Google Scholar,” Serials 18, no. 1 (March 2005): 71.

See, for example, O’Leary; Skhal and Vine; and Giustini and Barsky.

Susan Gardner and Susanna Eng, “Gaga Over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences,” Library Hi Tech News 22, no. 8(2005): 42-45.

Jascó.

Janice Adlington and Chris Benda, “Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10, no. 3/4 (2005):135-148.

D. Yvonne Jones, “Biology Article Retrieval from Various Databases: Making Good Choices with Limited Resources,” Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 44 (Fall 2005), http://www.istl.org/05-fall/refereed.html (accessed May 2, 2006).

Kathleen Bauer and Nisa Bakkalbasi, “An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment,” D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 9 (September 2005), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html (accessed May 1, 2006).

Burright.

Chris Neuhaus, et al., “The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, no. 2 (2006): 127:141.


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