The DOI matches its Crossref record.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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”
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 383
Bunn, F., Trivedi, D. P., Alderson, P., Hamilton, L. K., Martin, A. E., Pinkney, E., & Iliffe, S. (2015) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta19280 · Cited by 42
Revisitinghmeasured on UK LIS and IR academics
Sanderson, M. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20771 · Cited by 41
“…introduction of Google Scholar produced divergent views on its utility and accuracy, with generally positive views from Zhao (2005) and Bauer and Bakkalbasi (2005); while Jacsó (2005, 2006) and Meho and Yang (2007), by and large, emphasised problems with the scholarly publications search engine.”
Ştirbu, S., Thirion, P., Schmitz, S., Haesbroeck, G., & Greco, N. (2015) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.02.013 · Cited by 40
Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective
Thelwall, M. A. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0669-x · Cited by 39
“This would give a clear advantage to journals with simple and well-used hashtags however, and also would not stop the spam problem.”
BackgroundMartín‐Martín, A., Orduña‐Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 39
Indicators of owner commitment for successful delivery of green building projects
Olanipekun, A. O., Chan, A. P. C., Xia, B., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2016) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.017 · Cited by 37
Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries
Mullen, L. B., & Hartman, K. (2006) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.67.2.106 · Cited by 37
Competence in nursing informatics among nursing students and staff at a nursing institute in Sweden
Ragneskog, H., & Gerdner, L. A. (2006) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00643.x · Cited by 36
A geostatistical analysis of geostatistics
Tomislav Hengl, A., Minasny, B., & Gould, M. D. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0073-3 · Cited by 35
Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science
Lewandowski, D. (2010) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684521011036972 · Cited by 35
Google Scholar Users and User Behaviors: An Exploratory Study
Herrera, G. (2011) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl-125rl · Cited by 34
Jacsó, P. (2012) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684521211241503 · Cited by 34
Self-citationPutting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study
Robinson, M. L., & Wusteman, J. (2007) · Data Technologies and Applications · doi:10.1108/00330330710724908 · Cited by 34
“This lack of PROG 41,1 74 overlap in search engine coverage is in agreement with that of previous studies (Lawrence and Giles, 1999; Jacsó, 2005b) and highlights the problems faced by users in attempting to search comprehensively for relevant information on the web.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMartín‐Martín, A., Orduña‐Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4814.4402 · Cited by 34
“ften go beyond reporting a few anecdotal issues. In this respect, we must highlight the great impact of Peter Jacsó‘s works, who analyzed the strengths and specially the weaknesses of Google Scholar (Jacsó 2005; 2006a; 2006b; 2008; 2010). In order to contextualize all the data offered previously in this work, we prese…”
A mapping study on documentation in Continuous Software Development
Theunissen, T., van Heesch, U., & Avgeriou, P. (2022) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106733 · Cited by 40
A preliminary assessment of Google Scholar as a source of EAP students' research materials
Helms‐Park, R., Radia, P., & Stapleton, P. (2007) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.002 · Cited by 32
“While studies appearing soon after the inception of Google Scholar drew attention to its “lag problem” (Notess, 2005, p. 41) involving “massive content omissions” ( Jacso, 2005, p. 214 ), Google Scholar seems to have overcome this recently by amassing information from the digital archives of key academic publishing ho…”
BackgroundMetalib and Google Scholar: a user study
Haya, G., Nygren, E., & Widmark, W. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710764122 · Cited by 32
“On the other hand, a great deal of analysis has been written by information professionals outlining various flaws including incomplete coverage, lack of documentation and lack of currency, just to name a few (Gardner and Eng, 2005; Giustini and Barsky, 2005; Jacsó, 2005; Neuhaus et al., 2006; Sadeh, 2006).”
BackgroundGoogle Scholar's Ranking Algorithm: The Impact of Articles' Age (An Empirical Study)
Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009) · International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations · doi:10.1109/itng.2009.317 · Cited by 32
“…Scholar's coverage of the literature in general and in certain research fields [3] [4], the suitability to use Google Scholar's citation counts for calculating bibliometric indices such as the h-index [5] and the reliability of Google Scholar as a serious information source in general [6] [7].”
BackgroundMukherjee, B. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21003 · Cited by 32
Martín‐Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4 · Cited by 31
“Both GS and GSC present a series of well-known shortcomings and restrictions that hinder the use of these platforms for bibliometric analyses (Jacsó 2005; 2008; 2012; Meho and Yang 2007; Aguillo 2012; Prins 2016).”
BackgroundChen, X. (2010) · Serials Review · doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2010.02.010 · Cited by 31
Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar
Callicott, B. B., & Vaughn, D. (2005) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1300/j136v10n03_08 · Cited by 31
“In his article entitled “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons,” Péter Jacsó (2005) uncovered a potentially telling void in Google Scholar’s content.”
BackgroundJacsó, P. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0769-7 · Cited by 29
“A variety of examples are shown for this perennial problem in GS (Jacso 2005b, 2006, 2007c, 2008a, d, 2010a).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation15 Years of Protest and Media Technologies Scholarship: A Sociotechnical Timeline
Neumayer, C., & Rossi, L. (2016) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305116662180 · Cited by 34
“Although we are fully aware of the impact and the active role that such a sociotechnical platform plays in defining our data, it has been noted that Google Scholar works in a manner comparable to other electronic academic databases (Jacsó, 2005).”
ResultA research model for circular business models–Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes
Pietrulla, F., & Frankenberger, K. (2022) · Sustainable Futures · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2022.100084 · Cited by 35
Chen, X. (2006) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520610686300 · Cited by 28
“…Scholar cannot retrieve most of the scholarly records it has access to, but does mention Google Scholar’s one weakness: it limits the indexing of the collected files to the first 100-120 KB of the text, while the size of the majority of scholarly articles is close to or exceeds 1 MB (Jacsó, 2005).”
BackgroundReconstructing nursing altruism using a biological evolutionary framework
Haigh, C. A. (2010) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05274.x · Cited by 28
Scholarly achievement and accounting journal editorial board membership
Lowe, D. J., & Fleet, D. D. V. (2009) · Journal of Accounting Education · doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2010.07.004 · Cited by 28
On the bibliometric coordinates of four different research fields in Geography
Gorraiz, J. I., Gumpenberger, C., & Glade, T. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1864-y · Cited by 27
“…and citation databases (Web of Science, Scopus) is very low and therefore has to be treated carefully within common citation analyses, we have included Google Scholar (GS) as an additional data source in a first explorative attempt (Jacso 2005; Kousha and Thelwall 2007; Meho and Yang 2007).”
MethodAcademic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?
Wiechetek, Ł., & Pastuszak, Z. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6 · Cited by 29
“As stated in the introduction, we agree that the RG score is not an ideal indicator (Jacsó, 2005; Jamali, 2017; Kraker & Lex, 2015; Thelwall & Kousha, 2017), however, many researchers have confirmed the benefits of specialized social networks both for researchers and research institutions and their usefulness in incre…”
BackgroundRobertson, E. G., Wakefield, C. E., Marshall, K. H., & Sansom‐Daly, U. M. (2015) · Clinical Oncology in Adolescents and Young Adults · doi:10.2147/coaya.s85988 · Cited by 28
“Given the growing role of Google Scholar in academic work, 58,59 we utilized this search engine for the narrative stage of the review.”
Neue Formen der Wissenschaftskommunikation
Hagenhoff, S., Seidenfaden, L., Ortelbach, B., & Schümann, M. (2007) · Göttinger Schriften zur Internetforschung · doi:10.17875/gup2007-208 · Cited by 27
Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source
White, B. (2006) · E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) · Cited by 27
How Scholarly Is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases
Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R., & Roberts, B. C. (2009) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/0700227 · Cited by 27
Comparison and Analysis of the Citedness Scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar
Jacsó, P. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11599517_41 · Cited by 27
Self-citationA Review of Hospitality Website Design Frameworks
Hashim, N. H., Murphy, J., & Law, R. (2007) · Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2007 · doi:10.1007/978-3-211-69566-1_21 · Cited by 73
All Along the h-Index-related Literature: A Guided Tour
Schubert, A. P., & Schubert, G. A. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_12 · Cited by 27
Mugnaini, R., & Strehl, L. (2008) · Encontros Bibli Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação · doi:10.5007/1518-2924.2008v13nesp1p92 · Cited by 26
“Jacsó (2005) explica que a grande vantagem da recuperação através desta ferramenta consiste no fato de que a busca se dá em índices criados a partir do texto completo do documento primário.”
BackgroundWeb visibility of scholars in media and communication journals
Chung, C. J., & Park, H. W. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8 · Cited by 26
Journal Quality: A Google Scholar Analysis
Soutar, G. N., & Jamie Murphy, A. (2009) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.05.009 · Cited by 26
“Beyond this general information on GS little is known, which has led to a suggestion that ‘‘Google is as secretive about its coverage as the North Korean government about the famine in the country” (Jacsó, 2006, p. 209).”
BackgroundMethodAutomating the Horae: Boundary-work in the age of computers
Reyes-Galindo, L. I. (2016) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312716642317 · Cited by 23
ANALISIS MESIN PENCARIAN GOOGLE SCHOLAR SEBAGAI SUMBER BARU UNTUK KUTIPAN
Rafika, A. S., Putri, H. Y., & Widiarti, F. D. (2017) · Journal CERITA · doi:10.33050/cerita.v3i2.657 · Cited by 23
Clinical research coordinators: Key components of an efficient clinical trial unit
Mora, V., Colantuono, S., Fanali, C., Leonetti, A., Wlderk, G., Pirro, M. A., Palmarino, F. M. C., Savini, R., Ianiro, G., Gasbarrini, A., et al. (2023) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101057 · Cited by 23
“Other search engines, as Google Scholar, have been considered in a second review of scientific literature, despite its limitations [8].”
BackgroundThe State of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Google Scholar Perspective
Auffhammer, M. (2009) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/rep001 · Cited by 22
“, limited scope, faulty data) (Jacsó 2005) now seem to have been either fixed or effectively eliminated with its much broader coverage and more frequent updates.”
BackgroundWebometrics: Emergent or Doomed?.
Thelwall, M. A. (2010) · Cited by 22
Faculty Performance Evaluation Using Citation Analysis
Sanchez, T. W. (2016) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x16633500 · Cited by 23
“Critics such as Jacsó (2005b, 2008) and Giustini and Boulos (2013) disagree and discount non–peer reviewed publications.”
Background“They can't read, but they sure can count”
Gorman, G. E. (2008) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520810923872 · Cited by 21
Deconstructing Google Dataset Search
Canino, A. (2019) · Public & Access Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15228959.2019.1621793 · Cited by 21
Martín‐Martín, A., Orduña‐Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2016) · Revista española de Documentación Científica · doi:10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405 · Cited by 21
“These errors have been already studied and classified (Jacsó, 2005; 2006; Bar-Ilan 2010; Jacsó 2008a; 2008b; 2012).”
BackgroundTerminal illness and tourism: a review of current literature and directions for future research
Willson, G., McIntosh, A. J., Morgan, A., & Sanders, D. (2018) · Tourism Recreation Research · doi:10.1080/02508281.2018.1443053 · Cited by 20
“This retrieval method has been advocated as successful by Jacsó (2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAvailability and Accessibility in an Open Access Institutional Repository: A Case Study.
Lee, J., Burnett, G., Vandegrift, M., Baeg, J. H., & Morris, R. J. (2015) · Information Research · Cited by 20
Factors Contributing to the Preferred Method of Feeding in End-Stage Dementia: A Scoping Review
Newman, R. D., Ray, R., Woodward, L., & Glass, B. D. (2019) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-019-10072-3 · Cited by 19
“When full texts could not be sourced via the respective databases, Google Scholar was used as it searches the indexes created from the full/part of the text of principal documents, and not just the bibliography, abstracts and subject terms [26].”
MethodOptimising metadata to make high‐value content more accessible to Google users
Dawson, A., & Hamilton, V. (2006) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410610666484 · Cited by 19
Vicent, M., Katushabe, C., Gloria, M., & Rugasira, J. (2025) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00495-3 · Cited by 35
“Earlier foundational shifts from computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) tools to academic search engines [34] and reference mangers laid the groundwork for automation in research workflow [28].”
Fedderke, J. W. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0981-0 · Cited by 18
“While Jacsó (2005, 2006a, 2006b) reports that the social sciences and Humanities are underreported under Google Scholar, larger-scale studies reverse this finding—see Bosman et al. (2006) ISI itself estimates that of the 2000 new journals reviewed annually only 10–12 % are selected to be included…”
BackgroundEvaluation of ninety-three major Greek university departments using Google Scholar
Αλτανοπούλου, Π., Dontsidou, M., & Tselios, N. K. (2012) · Quality in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13538322.2012.670918 · Cited by 18
“Such indices could be easily calculated using data from scientific databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, Citeseer, Scirus and Google Scholar (Jacso, 2005a; Meho, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodStudying Journal Coverage in Google Scholar
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2008) · Journal of Library Administration · doi:10.1080/01930820802110894 · Cited by 18
“(Jacsó, 2005b) His observations led him to conclude that Scholar could be a useful service if its implementation would be more careful and elaborated, but in its current beta status Scholar is not sufficient for scholarly research.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBen‐David, D. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0049-3 · Cited by 18
Ein Forschungsleistungsranking auf der Grundlage von Google Scholar
Dilger, A., & Müller, H. (2012) · Journal of Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11573-012-0617-5 · Cited by 18
“Ein wesentlicher Einwand besteht darin, dass die Datenbank nicht nur Zitationen von anderen Wissenschaftlern enthält, sondern gelegentlich auch allgemeine Zeitungsartikel oder studentische Hausarbeiten als zitierende Werke ausgewertet werden (vgl. Jacsó 2005, 2006).”
SOARING MINDS: THE FLIGHT OF ISRAEL’S ECONOMISTS
Ben‐David, D. (2009) · Contemporary Economic Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00141.x · Cited by 18
Tubaishat, A., Aljezawi, M., Rawajfah, O. A., Habiballah, L., & Akhu‐Zaheya, L. (2015) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.006 · Cited by 20
“Several other authors have supported such integration (Deltsidou et al., 2010; Jacso, 2005).”
BackgroundDerbe, G., Li, Y., Wu, D., & Zhao, Q. (2020) · Journal of Civil Engineering and Management · doi:10.3846/jcem.2020.12317 · Cited by 17
“two or more versions of same journal articles are found online (Jacsó, 2005).”
BackgroundIncursions from the epicentre: Southern theory, social science, and the global HIV research domain
Hodes, R., & Morrell, R. G. (2018) · African Journal of AIDS Research · doi:10.2989/16085906.2017.1377267 · Cited by 17
“We chose to use Google Scholar because we were interested in which academic publications came to the fore on the basis not just of scholarly citations, but of wider use, including “grey literature” not captured by Web of Science and Scopus.”
BackgroundVisualizing overlap and rank differences among web‐wide search engines
Jacsó, P. (2005) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520510628927 · Cited by 17
“(Jacsó, 2005) No wonder the overlap is minimal among web-wide search engines which crawl and index the mostly unstructured open web.”
BackgroundSelf-citationClermont, M., & Dyckhoff, H. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2016850 · Cited by 17
Stevenson, A. B., & Rieck, J. (2024) · Logistics · doi:10.3390/logistics8030082 · Cited by 16
“From the point of view of objectivity, replicability, and verifiability, it is problematic that Google Scholar users cannot replicate the finding of the indexed source references and that Google does not publicly document the search algorithm [10].”
The changing research funding regime in Australia and academic productivity
Marinova, D. V., & Newman, P. W. G. (2008) · Mathematics and Computers in Simulation · doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2008.01.020 · Cited by 16
“Jasco’s [19] analysis of the merits and demerits of Google Scholar for the very early stage of its operation (between its inception in November 2004 and March 2005) concludes that there was significant content omission but that it has the potential to become an excellent free tool for scholarly information.”
BackgroundLarge language models for causal hypothesis generation in science
Cohrs, K.-H., Díaz, E., Sitokonstantinou, V., Varando, G., & Camps‐Valls, G. (2024) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ada47f · Cited by 23
“Similar to other semi-automatic tools for knowledge extractions, their reliability needs to be investigated [59, 62, 71, 100].”
Gu, X., Krish, M., Sohail, S., Thakur, S., Sabrina, F., & Fan, Z. (2025) · Computation · doi:10.3390/computation13010010 · Cited by 16
Tackling Research Inefficiency in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Illustrative Review
Khan, D. Z., Khan, M. S., Kotter, M., & Davies, B. M. (2019) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/15922 · Cited by 16
“However, it has been criticized for being less comprehensive, less precise, and less sophisticated (in terms of advanced search functions and controlled vocabulary) [29,30].”
BackgroundDoes dirty data affect google scholar citations?
Doğan, G., Şencan, İ., & Tonta, Y. (2016) · Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098 · Cited by 16
“62), it has been criticized for containing different types of errors (Jacsó, 2005; Jacsó, 2006a; Jacsó, 2006b) “including dirty data” (Konkiel, 2014).”
BackgroundIs Google scholar really scholarly?
Loan, F. A., & Shueb, S. (2018) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-11-2017-0078 · Cited by 16
Bose, P., Rana, P., & Ghosh, P. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3299877 · Cited by 18
“From these search results, we selected ten research articles from Google Scholar [60]”
MethodNicolaou, C. (2021) · International Research in Higher Education · doi:10.5430/irhe.v6n1p1 · Cited by 21
“Although some researchers believe that it has huge content omissions in its structure (Karlsson, 2014; Howland et al., 2009; Jacsó, 2008a, 2008b, 2005) and is unsuitable for searching information (Jacsó, 2010), suggesting specific websites databases as digital/electronic/online libraries or/and…”
BackgroundUsing Citation Analysis for Finding Experts in Workgroups
Bogers, T., Kox, K., & van den Bosch, A. P. J. (2008) · Cited by 15
Rahardja, U., Tiara, K., & Rosalinda, I. A. (2016) · Technomedia Journal · doi:10.33050/tmj.v1i1.28 · Cited by 14
Alotaibi, F. A., & Johnson, F. (2020) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-10-2019-0304 · Cited by 14
Assessing the international web connectivity of research groups
Thelwall, M. A., Li, X., Barjak, F., & Robinson, S. (2008) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/00012530810847344 · Cited by 14
Euroscepticism: a meta-analysis
Marzi, P. (2024) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-024-00351-9 · Cited by 13
“For instance, Web of Science (WoS) has a relatively low growth rate compared to Google Scholar (Bar-Ilan 2008; Larsen and von Ins 2010), while the latter exhibits inconsistencies concerning publication years and study attribution (Jacsó 2005, 2008).”
Periódicos e rankings de periódicos em Administração
Ferreira, M. P. (2015) · Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração · doi:10.12712/rpca.v9i2.502 · Cited by 13
MEDLINE search retrieval issues: A longitudinal query analysis of five vendor platforms
Burns, C. S., Nix, T., Shapiro, R. M., & Huber, J. T. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234221 · Cited by 13
“Remarkably, these results suggest we may be able to level one of the early critiques of Google Scholar, which was its inability to replicate results from the same search over periods of time [57], on MEDLINE.”
ResultAn insight into research performance through a citation counting analysis
Lee, A., Au, N., Li, G., & Law, R. (2014) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.07.003 · Cited by 13
“The drawback of using GS is that its search algorithm is proprietary (Jascó, 2005).”
BackgroundExploring Usability of Reddit in Data Science and Knowledge Processing
Sawicki, J., Ganzha, M., Paprzycki, M., & Bădică, A. (2022) · Scalable Computing Practice and Experience · doi:10.12694/scpe.v23i1.1957 · Cited by 17
“However, although it is one of the most widely known databases that indexes scientific publications [27, 17], it already received both praise and criticism [20, 39].”
BackgroundResultThe use of smartphone on learning activities: Systematic review
Firmansyah, R., Hamdani, R. A., & Kuswardhana, D. (2020) · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/850/1/012006 · Cited by 12
“The publishing houses used are science direct, springer and taylor and francis [22-24].”
MethodWhat Simon said: the impact of the major management works of Herbert Simon
Kerr, G. (2011) · Journal of Management History · doi:10.1108/17511341111164418 · Cited by 12
Greenberg, R., & Bar‐Ilan, J. (2016) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/0961000616640031 · Cited by 11
Ang’ang’o, L. M., Herren, J. K., & Bishop, Ö. T. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24043507 · Cited by 11
A Review of Deep Learning-Based Vulnerability Detection Tools for Ethernet Smart Contracts
Wu, H., Peng, Y., He, Y., & Fan, J. (2024) · Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences · doi:10.32604/cmes.2024.046758 · Cited by 11
Mini-review: Rehabilitation engineering: Research priorities and trends
Satpute, S. A., Cooper, R., Dicianno, B. E., Joseph, J., Chi, Y., & Cooper, R. A. (2021) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2021.136207 · Cited by 11
Google scholar citation in retrospect: Visibility and contributions of African scholars
Lateef, A., Ogunkunle, A. T. J., & Adigun, G. O. (2016) · Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · doi:10.1080/09737766.2016.1213966 · Cited by 11
“Among several of such opportunities is the launching of Google Scholar (GS) in November 2004 [18].”
BackgroundAn Overview of Author-Level Indicators of Research Performance
Wildgaard, L. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_14 · Cited by 12
The Triumph of Expediency: The Impact of Google Scholar on Library Instruction
Ettinger, D. (2008) · Journal of Library Administration · doi:10.1300/j111v46n03_06 · Cited by 11
Research and the Long Tail: A Large-Scale Citation Analysis
Wu, L., Luesukprasert, L., & Lee, L. (2009) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.368 · Cited by 11
Digital trust and the adoption of e-government services in Pakistan: a systematic literature review
Mazhar, A., Iradat, F., Taşkın, N., & Metin, B. (2025) · Security Journal · doi:10.1057/s41284-025-00506-z · Cited by 14
“Popular databases such as Scopus (Boyle and Sherman 2006), IEEE Xplore (Wilde 2016), Google Scholar (Jacsó 2005), and Web of Science (Bir-kle et al. 2020) were utilized due to their extensive collections of peer-reviewed articles and conference papers.”
Is Microsoft Academic a viable citation source for ranking marketing journals?
Moussa, S. (2019) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-03-2019-0070 · Cited by 9
Use of Google Scholar public profiles in orthopedics
Tetsworth, K. D., Fraser, D., Glatt, V., & Hohmann, E. (2017) · Journal of orthopaedic surgery · doi:10.1177/2309499017690322 · Cited by 10
SRG: A Digital Document-Enhanced Service Oriented Research Grid
Fox, G., Mustaçoğlu, A. F., Topcu, A. E., & Cami, A. (2007) · IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri.2007.4296598 · Cited by 10
A review of the literature on citation impact indicatorsPreprint
Waltman, L. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.02099 · Cited by 10
“of Google Scholar. A general impression obtained from the literature is that Google Scholar suffers from a lack of quality control. Many inaccuracies in Google Scholar are reported in the literature. Jacsó (2005, 2006, 2010) for instance discusses problems related to content gaps, incorrect citation counts, and phanto…”
BackgroundExploring ethical values in software systems: A systematic literature review
Alidoosti, R., Lago, P., Razavian, M., & Tang, A. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.112430 · Cited by 12
Elsden, C., Mellor, S., Olivier, P. L., Wheldon, P., Kirk, D. S., & Comber, R. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858181 · Cited by 9
“Such trends have received widespread criticism [11,25,27,49] and there is a growing body of academic research examining the implications of metrification for academic performance and welfare [7,22].”
Background
Metadata
- 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
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
