The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study

Scientometrics

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 1547-1565

  de Winter, Joost C F ^a   Zadpoor, Amir A ^a   Dodou, Dimitra ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Automatic indexing; Citation classic; Citation Index; Historic trend; Most highly cited paper; Strengths and weaknesses

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892886141     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93(3), 553-581.
2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7).
3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495-506.
5. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.
6. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9).
7. Beall, J. (2010). "Predatory" open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10-17.
8. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2010). Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar's resilience against it. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(3), 1-25.
9. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 27-35.
10. Bosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Utrecht University Library. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://igitur-archive. library. uu. nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/UUindex. html.
11. Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry, 72(1), 248-254.
12. Burright, M. (2006). Google Scholar: Science & technology. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 45.
13. Butler, L., & Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66(2), 327-343.
14. Cathcart, R., & Roberts, A. (2005). Evaluating Google Scholar as a tool for information literacy. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10(3-4), 167-176.
15. Chen, X. (2010). Google Scholar's dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221-226.
16. Couto, F. M., Grego, T., Pesquita, C., & Verissimo, P. (2009). Handling self-citations using Google Scholar. International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 13(1). Retrieved June 30, 2013, from https://docs. di. fc. ul. pt/jspui/handle/10455/3304.
17. De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391-400.
18. Donlan, R., & Cooke, R. (2005). Running with the devil. Accessing library-licensed full text holdings through Google Scholar. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10(3-4), 149-157.
19. Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11(1), 1-42.
20. Einstein, A. (1936). Lens-like action of a star by the deviation of light in the gravitational field. Science, 84(2188), 506-507.
21. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.
22. Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83, 243-258.
23. García-Pérez, M. A. (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2070-2085.
24. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108-111.
25. Garfield, E. (1974). Selecting the all-time citations classics. Here are the fifty most cited papers 1961-1972. Current Contents, 2, 5-8. Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://garfield. library. upenn. edu/essays/v2p006y1974-76. pdf.
26. Garfield, E. (1984). The 100 most-cited papers ever and how we select citation classics. Current Contents, 23, 3-9. Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://www. garfield. library. upenn. edu/essays/v7p175y1984. pdf.
27. Garfield, E. (1990). The most-cited papers of all time, SCI 1945-1988. Part 1A. The SCI top 100-will the Lowry method ever be obliterated? Current Contents, 7, 3-14. Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://www. garfield. library. upenn. edu/essays/v13p045y1990. pdf.
28. Garfield, E. (2005). The agony and the ecstasy-the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Chicago: International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://garfield. library. upenn. edu/papers/jifchicago2005. pdf.
29. Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1123-1127.
30. Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1), 7.
31. Google Scholar (2013). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://scholar. google. com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion. html#overview.
32. Harzing, A. W. (2008). Google Scholar-a new data source for citation analysis. University of Melbourne. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www. harzing. com/pop_gs. htm.
33. Harzing, A. W. (2013a). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-013-0975-y.
34. Harzing, A. W. (2013b). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057-1075.
35. Hightower, C., & Caldwell, C. (2010). Shifting sands: Science researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 63.
36. Ioannidis, J., Tatsioni, A., & Karassa, F. B. (2010). Who is afraid of reviewers' comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 40(4), 285-287.
37. Jacsó, P. (2005a). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214.
38. Jacsó, P. (2005b). 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), 1537-1547.
39. Jacsó, P. (2005c). Comparison and analysis of the citedness scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar. In Digital libraries: Implementing strategies and sharing experiences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3815 (pp. 360-369). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
40. Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309.
41. Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102-114.
42. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065.
43. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273-294.
44. Kresge, N., Simoni, R. D., & Hill, R. L. (2005). The most highly cited paper in publishing history: Protein determination by Oliver H. Lowry. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 280(28), e25-e25.
45. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092-1096.
46. Labbe, C. (2010). Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament. ISSI Newsletter, 6(2), 48-52.
47. Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature, 227(5259), 680-685.
48. Larsen, P. O., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575-603.
49. Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. (2009). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986-996.
50. López-Cózar, E. D., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2012). Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. arXiv: 1212. 0638.
51. Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L., & Randall, R. J. (1951). Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193(1), 265-275.
52. Mancini, G., Carbonara, A. O., & Heremans, J. F. (1965). Immunochemical quantitation of antigens by single radial immunodiffusion. Immunochemistry, 2(3), 235-254.
53. Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31(6), 814-830.
54. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
55. Meier, J. J., & Conkling, T. W. (2008). Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature: An empirical study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 196-201.
56. Mikki, S. (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82(2), 321-331.
57. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. A. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613-625.
58. Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation, 64(2), 193-210.
59. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-141.
60. Noyori, R. (1992). Asymmetric catalysis by chiral metal complexes. ChemTech, 22(6), 360-367.
61. Pauly, D., & Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 33-35.
62. Pomerantz, J. (2006). Google Scholar and 100 percent availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2), 52-56.
63. Research Excellence Framework. (2013). Sub-panel 11: Citation data. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www. ref. ac. uk/subguide/citationdata/googlescholar/.
64. Sen, A. (1974). On some debates in capital theory. Economica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 41(163), 328-335.
65. Sharma, V. (2008). Text book of bioinformatics. Meerut: Rastogi Publications.
66. Thomson Reuters. (2013a). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from http://thomsonreuters. com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/.
67. Thomson Reuters. (2013b). Web of Science facts sheet. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://thomsonreuters. com/content/science/pdf/Web_of_Science_factsheet. pdf.
68. Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., & Beasley, E. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291(5507), 1304-1351.
69. Vine, R. (2006). Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(1), 97-99.
70. Web of Knowledge. (2006). Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://wokinfo. com/media/pdf/MostHighlyCitedArticles. pdf.
71. Wleklinski, J. M. (2005). Studying Google Scholar: Wall to wall coverage? Online, 29(3), 22-26.