CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Library Science and Informationscientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Google Scholar revisited

Jacsó, Péter·2008·Online Information Review
DOI 10.1108/14684520810866010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach: This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar. Findings: The Google Books project has given a massive and valuable boost to the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The downside of the growth is that significant gaps remain for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. Originality/value: This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/14684520810866010

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Abram, S. (2005), “Google Scholar: thin edge of the wedge?”, Information Outlook, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 44‐6, available at: www.sirsi.com/Pdfs/Company/Abram/StephenAbram_GoogleScholarThinEdge.pdf.
  2. Felter, L.M. (2005), “The better mousetrap: Google Scholar”, Scirus, and the Scholarly Search Revolution, Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 43‐8.
  3. Grogg, J.E. and Ferguson, C.L. (2005), “OpenURL linking with Google Scholar”, Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 39‐46.
  4. Hamaker, C. and Spry, B. (2006), “Key issues – Google Scholar”, Serials, pp. 9‐11.
  5. Jacsó, P. (2005b), “As we may search ‐ comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation‐based and citation‐enhanced databases”, Current Science, Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 1537‐47, available at: www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf.
  6. Myhill, M. (2005), “Google Scholar”, Charleston Advisor, Vol. 6 No. 4.
  7. Notess, G.R. (2005), “Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 39‐41.
  8. O'Leary, M. (2005), “Google Scholar: what's in it for you?”, Information Today, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 35‐9.
  9. Price, G. (2005), “Google Scholar is now open to all libraries”, Search Engine Journal, available at: www.searchenginejournal.com/oogle‐scholar‐is‐now‐open‐to‐all‐libraries/1694/.
  10. Tenopir, C. (2005) Vol. 32, “Google in the academic library: undergraduates may find all they want on Google Scholar”, Library Journal, 1 February, p. 32, available at: www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA498868.html.
  11. Vine, R. (2006), “Google Scholar”, Journal of Medical Library Association, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 97‐9, available at: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1324783.
  12. Wleklinski, J.M. (2005), “Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage?”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 22‐6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 206

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jacsó, P.
Affiliations
University of Hawaii System (US)
Corresponding author
Jacsó, Péter
ORCID
Jacsó, Péter
Venue
Online Information Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2008-02-22
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
102-114
ISSN
1468-4527 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/14684520810866010
OpenAlex
W2102661446
Cited by
206
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
54.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Online Information Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
Google Scholar, Google Books, bibliographic search engines, duplicate records, journal indexing, search engine ranking, full-text search

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