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
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379
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
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974
“…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
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687
“2017; Mingers and Meyer 2017; Aguillo 2012; Orduña-Malea and Delgado López-Cózar 2014; Jacsó 2005, 2008, 2012; Orduna-Malea et al.”
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
