The Utility of Google Scholar When Searching Geographical Literature: Comparison With Three Commercial Bibliographic Databases

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 322-329

  Ştirbu, Simona ^a   Thirion, Paul ^a   Schmitz, Serge ^b   Haesbroeck, Gentiane ^b   Greco, Ninfa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^b Library Network of the University of Liège Traverse des Architectes ^*  (Belgium)

Author keywords

Bibliographic database analysis; FRANCIS; Geographical literature; GeoRef; Google Scholar; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929966419     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.02.013     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bar-Ilan J. An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes. Information Processing and Management 2006, 42(6):1553-1566.
2. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 2008, 74(2):257-271.
3. Bar-Ilan J., Levene M., Lin A. Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(1):26-34.
4. Bauer K., Bakkalbasi N. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib magazine 2005, 11 (Issue 9).
5. Brown B.N. A comparative analysis of geoscience literature databases. Geological Society of America 2009 annual meeting 2009, Paper presented at the, Boulder, CO, United States.
6. Chen X. Google Scholar's dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review 2010, 36(4):221-226. 10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002.
7. Chen X. The declining value of subscription-based abstracting and indexing services in the new knowledge dissemination era. Serials Review 2010, 36(2):79-85. 10.1016/j.serrev.2010.02.010.
8. Cusker J. Elsevier Compendex and Google Scholar: A quantitative comparison of two resources for engineering research and an update to prior comparisons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2013, 39(3):241-243. 10.1016/j.acalib.2013.02.001.
9. Falagas M.E., Pitsouni E.I., Malietzis G.A., Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal 2008, 22(2):338-342.
10. FRANCIS FRANCIS. Retrieved 20 October 2014 (from). http://www.inist.fr/?article23.
11. Gardner S., Eng S. Gaga over Google? Scholar in the social sciences. Library Hi Tech News 2005, 22(8):42-45.
12. GeoRef GeoRef. Retrieved 19 October 2014 (from). http://www.agiweb.org/georef/.
13. Gluck M. A review of journal coverage overlap with an extension to the definition of overlap. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1990, 41(1):43-60.
14. GoogleScholar GoogleScholar. Retrieved 15 October 2014 (from). http://scholar.google.be/intl/en/scholar/about.html.
15. Hood W.W., Wilson C.S. Overlap in bibliographic databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2003, 54(12):1091-1103.
16. Jacsó P. Google scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review 2005, 29(2):208-214.
17. Jacsó P. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review 2008, 32(1):102-114. 10.1108/14684520810866010.
18. Jones D.Y. Biology article retrieval from various databases: Making good choices with limited resources. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 2005, 44. (N.PAG.).
19. Lohonen J., Isohanni M., Nieminen P., Miettunen J. Coverage of the bibliographic databases in mental health research. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2010, 64(3):181-188. 10.3109/08039480903337378.
20. Meier J.J., Conkling T.W. Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature: An empirical study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2008, 34(3):196-201. 10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.002.
21. Mikki S. Google Scholar compared to Web of Science: A literature review. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education 2009, 1(1):41-51.
22. Mikki S. Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics 2010, 82(2):321-331. 10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6.
23. Mingers J., Lipitakis E. Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics 2010, 85(2):613-625.
24. Musser L.R. Comparison of GeoRef and Google Scholar. 43rd meeting of the Geoscience Information Society. Symposium on: Libraries in transformation: Exploring topics of changing practices and new technologies 2008, Paper presented at the, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 21218., (Houston, TX, United States).
25. Neuhaus C., Neuhaus E., Asher A., Wrede C. The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. portal: Libraries and the Academy 2006, 6(2):127-141.
26. Notess G.R. Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online 2005, 29(4):39-41.
27. Robinson M.L., Wusteman J. Putting Google Scholar to the test: A preliminary study. Program: electronic library and information systems 2007, 41(1):71-80.
28. Walters W.H. Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management 2007, 43(4):1121-1132.
29. Walters W.H. Comparative recall and precision of simple and expert searches in Google Scholar and eight other databases. portal: Libraries and the Academy 2011, 11(4):972-1006.
30. Web of Science. Retrieved 20 October 2014, from . http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science:products/a-z/web_of_science/.