Google Scholar: the pros and the cons
Abstract
Purpose: To identify the pros and the cons of Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach: Chronicles the recent history of the Google Scholar search engine from its inception in November 2004 and critiques it with regard to its merits and demerits. Findings: Feels that there are massive content omissions presently but that, with future changes in its structure, Google Scholar will become an excellent free tool for scholarly information discovery and retrieval. Originality/value: Presents a useful analysis for potential users of the Google Scholar site.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previous studies examining the suitability of search systems for evidence synthesis have focused on a limited number of search systems and/or based their analysis on a review of the search interface, yet without any in-depth examination of core functionalities that allow reliable query-based searching.
“Previous studies examining the suitability of search systems for evidence synthesis have focused on a limited number of search systems and/or based their analysis on a review of the search interface, yet without any in‐depth examination of core functionalities that allow reliable query‐based searching.19, 30, 31, 32”
Scopus has the widest coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and publications among bibliographic databases.
“the relevant academic publishing was collected from Scopus which has been supported as having the widest coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and publications among bibliographic databases [21,22,23].”
From A Review of Privacy Enhancement Methods for Federated Learning in Healthcare Systems (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379 · see citing works
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356 · see citing works
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
“…Abstracts (CSA), Emerald, HighWire Press, Ingenta, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), PubMed, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, University of Chicago Press, and Wiley, among others (Bauer & Bakkalbasi, 2005; Gardner & Eng, 2005; Jacsó, 2005b; Noruzi, 2005; Wleklinski, 2005).”
Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687 · see citing works
“2017; Mingers and Meyer 2017; Aguillo 2012; Orduña-Malea and Delgado López-Cózar 2014; Jacsó 2005, 2008, 2012; Orduna-Malea et al.”
Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis
Harzing, A.-W. K., & van der Wal, R. (2007) · Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics · doi:10.3354/esep00076 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
“(3) Jacsó (2006b, p. 303) refers to a search he did to locate articles from The Scientist. He says the first item was an article about molecular biology in The Scientist, cited 7390 times. Our search does not return this item about molecular biology. The most cited paper in The Scientist was a 1986 article about stati…”
BackgroundThelwall, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551507087238 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
“Other studies with wider disciplinary coverage have also shown that the coverage of Google Scholar is variable and can be low or particularly unreliable for some disciplines [37, 38].”
BackgroundInformetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review
Bar‐Ilan, J. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001 · Cited by 467 · see citing works
Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison
S. Adriaanse, L., & Rensleigh, C. (2013) · The Electronic Library · doi:10.1108/el-12-2011-0174 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
de Winter, J., ZADPOOR, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Tell me a story — a conceptual exploration of storytelling in healthcare education
Haigh, C. A., & Hardy, P. (2010) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.08.001 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.14504301185 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
“across the web (Bauer & Bakkalbasi, 2005; Gardner & Eng, 2005; Jacso, 2005b; Wleklinski, 2005).”
Performance-based contracting: a literature review and future research directions
Selviaridis, K., & Wynstra, F. (2014) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.978031 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Sustainable digital transformation in small and medium enterprises (SMEs): A review on performance
Melo, I. C., Queiroz, G. A., Alves, P. N., de Sousa, T. B., Yushimito, W. F., & Pereira, J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13908 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
“They were chosen as they are regularly updated and have a wide breadth of coverage in most scientific subjects [43,44].”
BackgroundThe citation advantage of open‐access articles
Norris, M. W., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20898 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar
Shultz, M. (2007) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
“Not as comprehensive or precise as searching native interfaces [9, 11, 22]”
BackgroundIntroduction to Webometrics: Quantitative Web Research for the Social Sciences
Thelwall, M. (2009) · Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services · doi:10.2200/s00176ed1v01y200903icr004 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Zou, P. X. W., Xu, X., Sanjayan, J., & Wang, J. (2018) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.040 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi‐discipline exploratory analysis
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. A. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20584 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Jacsó, P. (2008) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520810866010 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
“…2006; Haya et al., 2007; Herrera, 2007), citation-enhanced databases such as Web of Science and/or Scopus (Bauer and Bakkalbasi, 2005; Jacsó, 2005b; Jacsó, 2005c; Yang and Meho, 2006; Norris and Oppenheim, 2007), or with a mix of these and traditional scholarly indexing/abstracting databases…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationGoogle Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
Giustini, D., & Kamel Boulos, M. N. (2013) · Online Journal of Public Health Informatics · doi:10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
“But GS was already deemed unsuitable for literature reviews due to its limited search (filtering and qualifiers) functionality; its inability to draw on the power of the MeSH vocabulary (used in MEDLINE/PubMed) was cited as a critical flaw [14,15].”
BackgroundCan we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?
Martín‐Martín, A., Orduña‐Malea, E., Harzing, A.-W. K., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
“This research has focused primarily on assessing the quality of the bibliographic and bibliometric data provided (Jacsó 2005; 2006; Bar-Ilan, 2010; Jacsó 2008a; 2008b; 2012) and its correlation with the indicators developed by Web of Science and Scopus (Bakkalbasi et al, 2006; Bar-Ilan, 2007;…”
BackgroundMethodRejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Zailani, S. H. M., Treiblmaier, H., & Hand, K. J. (2021) · Internet of Things · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2021.100361 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. A. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x · Cited by 169 · see citing works
“With advent of Google Scholar several reviews and papers have discussed its problems and citation tracking capabilities (e.g., [FRIEND, 2006; JACSO, 2004; 2005A; 2005B; NOTESS, 2005]), but the few articles that have compared Google Scholar with ISI citation data are exploratory and small-scale in…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBec, A., McLennan, C.-L., & Moyle, B. (2015) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1083538 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus
Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. A., & Rezaie, S. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21608 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
“Nevertheless, both Google databases do not publish a complete list of their sources; consequently, their coverage of academic information and the quality of the indexed sources are unknown (see Jacsó, 2005a; Kousha & Thelwall, 2009).”
BackgroundThe Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study
Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006) · portal: Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0026 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field
Walters, W. H. (2006) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
“The citation counts reported by Google Scholar are not entirely reliable, however (Bar-Ilan, 2006; Jacsó, 2005c, 2006).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDeflated, inflated and phantom citation counts
Jacso, P. (2006) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520610675816 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
“About the same time that the authors of the D-Lib Magazine article did their test in May 2005, I did my own hit and citation counts comparisons in WoS, Scopus and GS for a number of topics and a number of journals (Jacso, 2005a, b), including JASIS and JASIST.”
BackgroundSelf-citationDemiroz, F., & Haase, T. W. (2018) · Local Government Studies · doi:10.1080/03003930.2018.1541796 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus
Moed, H. F., Bar‐Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
“Jacsó (2005) noted the omission of highly relevant articles despite their availability in digital archives and Mayr & Walter (2007) discovered deficiencies in the coverage and upto-datedness of the Google Scholar index when comparing international scientific journals from Thomson Scientific (SCI,…”
BackgroundA New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google ScholarPreprint
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2006) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.cs/0612132 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
“For more details on WoS, see Goodman and Deis (2005) and Jacsó (2005a).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGoogle Scholar as a Data Source for Research Assessment
López‐Cózar, E. D., Orduña‐Malea, E., & Martín‐Martín, A. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
A Review of Privacy Enhancement Methods for Federated Learning in Healthcare Systems
Gu, X., Sabrina, F., Fan, Z., & Sohail, S. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20156539 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
A review of the Granger-causality fallacy
Maziarz, M. (2015) · The Journal of Philosophical Economics · doi:10.46298/jpe.10676 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Google Scholar’s Ranking Algorithm : An Introductory OverviewPreprint
Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009) · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Aligning software engineering education with industrial needs: A meta-analysis
Garousi, V., Giray, G., Tüzün, E., Catal, C., & Felderer, M. (2019) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.044 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
A comprehensive review of open innovation literature
Hossain, M., Islam, K. M. Z., Sayeed, M. A., & Kauranen, I. (2016) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-02-2015-0009 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Scientific Achievement and Editorial Board Membership
Bedeian, A. G., Fleet, D. D. V., & Hyman, H. H. (2007) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428107309312 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“The citation counts from Google Scholar, the beta version of which was launched in 2004, are generally considered highly suspect and consistently unreliable (Jacsó, 2006).”
Prins, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv049 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (An empirical study)
Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009) · International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) · doi:10.1109/rcis.2009.5089308 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“…Scholar's coverage of the literature in general and in certain research fields [7], [8], the suitability to use Google Scholar's citation counts for calculating bibliometric indices such as the h-index [9] and the reliability of Google Scholar as a serious information source in general [10], [11].”
BackgroundResponse-based methods to measure road surface irregularity: a state-of-the-art review
Nguyen, T., Lechner, B., & Wong, Y. D. (2019) · European Transport Research Review · doi:10.1186/s12544-019-0380-6 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Mentioning the Sample’s Country in the Article’s Title Leads to Bias in Research Evaluation
Kahalon, R., Klein, V., Ksenofontov, I., Ullrich, J., & Wright, S. C. (2021) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506211024036 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
An exploratory study of Google Scholar
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710841784 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
“…to count citations or hits (Jacso´, 2006a, b): Those who need a comprehensive set of papers that includes the most respected (and hence most-cited) articles, books and conference papers are advised to treat the hits – and citedness scores – in Google Scholar with much reservation (Jacso´, 2005c).”
InfluentialCustomer engagement research in hospitality and tourism: a systematic review
Shu-ping, C., Han, X., Bilgihan, A., & Okumuş, F. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2021.1903644 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
“In addition, similar keyword searches in Google Scholar will return the most comprehensive results over other databases since common word variations are automatically searched within its parameters (Bakkalbasi et al., 2006; Jacsó, 2005).”
BackgroundBornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.001 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
“Still, Jacso (2005) concludes, “the coverage of Google is impressively broad and includes the most important scholarly publishers’ archives” (p. 209).”
Fedderke, J. W., & Goldschmidt, M. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.009 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Enabling the language of accessible tourism
Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A. J., Darcy, S., & Cockburn‐Wootten, C. (2018) · Journal of Sustainable Tourism · doi:10.1080/09669582.2017.1377209 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
“Google Scholar was selected as an efficient and successful discovery and retrieval tool (Jacs o, 2005; 2008; Moed, Bar-Ilan, & Halevi, 2016), in addition to our University’s repository, which features subscriptions to extensive and multiple databases, including Scopus and Web of Science.”
MethodBaneyx, A. (2008) · Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis · doi:10.1007/s00005-008-0043-0 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Robust analysis of bibliometric data
Battisti, F. D., & Salini, S. (2012) · Statistical Methods & Applications · doi:10.1007/s10260-012-0217-0 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“Our decision to include Google Scholar, despite its data quality being worse than other databases, is due to the fact that research products of different types are catalogued in it (Jacsò 2005).”
BackgroundGoogle Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision
Walters, W. H. (2009) · portal Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.0.0034 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields
Jamali, H. R., & Nabavi, M. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“These studies on GS cover a range of topics, from early general discussions about its pros and cons as an academic search engine (Noruzi 2005; Jacsó 2005, 2008) to its comparison with other search engines for article retrieval (Falagas et al. 2008), its comparison with other citation indexes as a…”
ResultTake Me Back: Validating the Wayback Machine
Jamie Murphy, A., Hashim, N. H., & O’Connor, P. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00386.x · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“Google provides a toolbar that ranks websites on Google’s proprietary PageRank, and a beta tool, Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), provides popularity measures for scholarly articles (Bakkalbasi et al., 2006; Hall, 2006; Jacso´, 2005, 2006; Kousha & Thelwall, 2007; Pauly & Stergiou, 2005).”
MethodStigmatization of People With Pedophilia: A Blind Spot in Stigma Research
Jahnke, S., & Hoyer, J. (2013) · International Journal of Sexual Health · doi:10.1080/19317611.2013.795921 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in Education
van Aalst, J. (2010) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x10371120 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
“Jacsó (2005a) complained that Google Scholar fails to incorporate the meticulously tagged metadata offered to it by journal publishers.”
BackgroundKhan, A. M., Choudhury, N., Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Baur, L. A. (2016) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12372 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
“Database selection and download process Various search engines, digital libraries and web services (e.g. Google Scholar (13), PubMed (14), Scopus (15) and Web of Science (16)) provide bibliographical data on medical science related topics.”
BackgroundBusiness model innovation for urban smartization
Schiavone, F., Paolone, F., & Mancini, D. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.028 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Critical success factors of supply chain management: a literature survey and Pareto analysis
Talib, M. S. A., Hamid, A. B. A., & Thoo, A. C. (2015) · EuroMed Journal of Business · doi:10.1108/emjb-09-2014-0028 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Google Scholar’s Coverage of the Engineering Literature: An Empirical Study
Meier, J., & Conkling, T. W. (2008) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.002 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Hoepner, A. G. F., Kant, B., Scholtens, B., & Yu, P.-S. (2012) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.03.002 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
“However, both are fully exposed to the age effect discussed above and, in case of Aufhammer (2009), also to the biases associated with Google Scholar data (see, for instance, Jacsó, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Shultz, 2007).”
What's Queer about Political Science?
Smith, N. J., & Lee, D. (2014) · The British Journal of Politics and International Relations · doi:10.1111/1467-856x.12037 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Bornmann, L., Thor, A., Marx, W., & Schier, H. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23627 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“E-mail: bornmann@gv.mpg.de”
BackgroundA Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy of Google
Fuchs, C. (2011) · Fast Capitalism · doi:10.32855/fcapital.201101.006 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar
Jensenius, F. R., Htun, M., Samuels, D., Singer, D. A., Lawrence, A. K., & Chwe, M. S. (2018) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s104909651800094x · Cited by 73 · see citing works
The Golden Age? What the 100 Most Cited Articles in Terrorism Studies Tell Us
Silke, A., & Schmidt-Petersen, J. (2017) · Terrorism and Political Violence · doi:10.1080/09546553.2015.1064397 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut
Chen, X. (2010) · Serials Review · doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Bibliometric Analysis of Global Remote Sensing Research during 2010–2015
Zhang, H., Huang, M., Qing, X., Li, G., & Tian, C. (2017) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi6110332 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“However, due to the information about the coverage, the quality of indexed data and the difficulties in performing subject field normalization, it is not regarded as an alternative to the commercial citation databases as a source for evaluating studies [23].”
BackgroundChallenges of community-based tourism in Botswana: a review of literature
Stone, M. T., & Stone, L. S. (2020) · Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa · doi:10.1080/0035919x.2020.1715510 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
The pros and cons of computing the h‐index using Web of Science
Jacsó, P. (2008) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520810914043 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationExploring the academic invisible web
Lewandowski, D., & Mayr, P. (2006) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/07378830610715392 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Unfortunately, Google Scholar provides no documentation that would make the service more transparent (Jacsó, 2005).”
BackgroundCharacteristics of cancer blog users
Kim, S., & Chung, D. S. (2007) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.445 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
E-BUSINESS ADOPTION RESEARCH: STATE OF THE ART
Chen, L., & Holsapple, C. W. (2013) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · Cited by 57 · see citing works
The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States
DeLuca, L., John, A. E. S., Stolz, U., Matheson, L., Simpson, A. G., & Denninghoff, K. R. (2013) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.12226 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
A long-term bibliometric analysis of journals influencing management accounting and control research
Balstad, M. T., & Berg, T. (2019) · Journal of Management Control · doi:10.1007/s00187-019-00287-8 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Indeed, the data quality of GS has been thoroughly criticised; see for instance Jacsó (2005, 2006, 2010).”
BackgroundXu, X., Xiao, B., & Li, C. Z. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125623 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Orduña‐Malea, E., Martín‐Martín, A., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2017) · Revista española de Documentación Científica · doi:10.3989/redc.2017.4.1500 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“Jacsó (2005a) found that by clicking on the link to an article published in 2005 on Infection and Immunity, the system took him to the full text of another article published 25 years before in PNAS .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWilder, E. I., & Walters, W. H. (2021) · Scholarly Assessment Reports · doi:10.29024/sar.36 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Ethnobotanical approaches of traditional medicine studies in Southwest China: A literature review
Liu, B., Guo, Z., Bussmann, R. W., Li, F., Li, J., Hong, L.-Y., & Long, C. (2016) · Journal of Ethnopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.jep.2016.02.040 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“The review process included eliminating unreliable ‘grey literature’ such as drafts, website articles and pre-prints of submitted articles, scientific reports and conference papers (Falagas et al., 2008; Jacsó, 2005).”
MethodGoogle Scholar Metrics for Publications
Jacsó, P. (2012) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684521211254121 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationJeung, C., Yoon, H. J., Park, S., & Jo, S. J. (2011) · Human Resource Development Quarterly · doi:10.1002/hrdq.20062 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“Numerous studies have examined the performance of Google Scholar’s technology and database (Falagas et al., 2008; Harzing & van der Wal, 2008; Howland et al., 2009; Jacso, 2005; Kousha & Thelwall, 2007, 2008; LevineClark & Gil, 2009; Mayr & Walter, 2007, 2008; Meho & Yang, 2007; Meier & Conkling, 2008; Pauly & Stergio…”
ResultMpofu, P., & Salawu, A. (2020) · South African Journal of African Languages · doi:10.1080/02572117.2020.1733833 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Walters, W. H. (2011) · portal Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.2011.0042 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Almeida, S., & Borsato, M. (2018) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.020 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbersPreprint
Orduña‐Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín‐Martín, A., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1407.6239 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Google Scholar and 100 Percent Availability of Information
Pomerantz, J. (2006) · Information Technology and Libraries · doi:10.6017/ital.v25i2.3331 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica
Torres‐Salinas, D., Ruíz-Pérez, R., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2009) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“…puede no ser del todo cierta ya que en determinadas ocasiones Google solo indiza 101 KB de los sitios web y lo mismo ocurre, aunque con mayor tamaño, con los documentos en pdf; podemos encontrar documentos en pdf de cierto tamaño que no están indizados completamente (Price, 2004; Jacsó, 2005b).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe role of crowdsourcing in industry 4.0: a systematic literature review
Vianna, F. R. P. M., Graeml, A. R., & Peinado, J. (2020) · International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1080/0951192x.2020.1736714 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Aaltojärvi, I., Arminen, I., Auranen, O., & Puuska, H.-M. (2008) · Acta Sociologica · doi:10.1177/0001699307086815 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Application of Critical Success Factors in Supply Chain Management
Talib, M. S. A., & Hamid, A. B. A. (2014) · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Comparing Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar from an Environmental Sciences perspective
Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2011) · South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science · doi:10.7553/77-2-58 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“Scopus has also received criticism, which includes the lack of citation coverage before 1996 (Gavel & Iselid 2008: 14); a limited coverage of the Humanities as discipline (Jacso 2005a: 1539); and is an expensive citation resource (Schroeder 2007: 246).”
BackgroundInfluentialA Framework to Explore the Knowledge Structure of Multidisciplinary Research Fields
Uddin, S., Khan, A. M., & Baur, L. A. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123537 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“We chose it over other online sources (e.g., Google Scholar) because of its wide coverage of medical articles, consistent accuracy, filtering options and provision for downloading complete metadata as comma-separated file(s).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe selection of design methods for river water quality monitoring networks: a review
Nguyen, T. H., Helm, B., Hettiarachchi, H., Caucci, S., & Krebs, P. (2019) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-019-8110-x · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Ready for phase 5 - current status of ethnobiology in Southeast Asia
Hidayati, S., Franco, F. M., & Bussmann, R. W. (2015) · Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine · doi:10.1186/s13002-015-0005-7 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals
López‐Cózar, E. D., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2012.jul.15 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
The world wide web of research and access to knowledge
Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2009) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1057/kmrp.2009.13 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“This wide coverage Meho & Yang report in Google Scholar is in marked contrast to an earlier study which found that Google Scholar suffered from “massive content omissions” (Jasco, 2005, p. 208).”
Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs
Jacsó, P. (2006) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520610659201 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“The pros and cons of Google Scholar were covered in an earlier column (Jacsó, 2005), but Google Scholar deserves special mention and even its own section because of its celebrity status.”
BackgroundSelf-citationWalker, C., & Baxter, J. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919834379 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Google Scholar has been criticized for gaps in coverage (Giustini & Boulous, 2013; Jacsó, 2005), so the journal database Web of Science was also used.”
MethodChertow, M. R., Kanaoka, K. S., & Park, J. (2021) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.13099 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“While repeatedly criticized for its shortcomings (Falagas, Pitsouni, Malietzis, & Pappas, 2008; Giustini & Kamel Boulos, 2013; Jacso, 2005; Neuhaus, Neuhaus, Asher, &Wrede, 2006; Vine, 2006), GS has stirred discussions of its potential as a free-of-charge, more comprehensive alternative to…”
BackgroundMethodTHE MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 2001-2006: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
Bakri, A., & Willett, P. (2008) · White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise
Smith, A. G. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0219-8 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“[JACSÓ, 2005]), but nonetheless Google Scholar has become widely used for searching research oriented material.”
Background
- Authors
- Jacsó, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jacsó, Péter
- ORCID
- Jacsó, Péter
- Venue
- Online Information Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-04-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-214
- ISSN
- 1468-4527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993451046
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 66.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Online Information Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- Google Scholar, search engines, scientific information retrieval, information discovery
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
