CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and Information LiteracyLibrary Science and Information

Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources

Brophy, Jan, Bawden, David·2005·Aslib Proceedings
DOI 10.1108/00012530510634235
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach: A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings: Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications: Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications: The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the “Google phenomenon”. Originality/value: This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in‐depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/00012530510634235

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brophy, J., & Bawden, D.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
ORCID
Bawden, David
Venue
Aslib Proceedings
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2005-12-01
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
498-512
ISSN
0001-253X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/00012530510634235
OpenAlex
W2068269199
Cited by
213
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Aslib Journal of Information Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
Google, search engines, library databases, academic libraries, search performance comparison, search coverage, precision, relevance assessment, information retrieval, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review