The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Google Scholar revisited
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
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”
Citations
Cites
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
Google Scholar: the pros and the cons
Jacsó, P. (2005) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520510598066 · Cited by 383 · cited 5×
“…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: The New Generation of Citation Indexes
Noruzi, A. (2005) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libr.2005.170 · Cited by 292
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 285
An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment
Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005) · D-Lib Magazine · doi:10.1045/september2005-bauer · Cited by 215
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 174
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
The 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
Walser, R., & Berger, H. M. (1993) · Cited by 107
An exploratory study of Google Scholar
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710841784 · Cited by 101
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 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.
- Felter, L.M. (2005), “The better mousetrap: Google Scholar”, Scirus, and the Scholarly Search Revolution, Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 43‐8.
- Grogg, J.E. and Ferguson, C.L. (2005), “OpenURL linking with Google Scholar”, Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 39‐46.
- Hamaker, C. and Spry, B. (2006), “Key issues – Google Scholar”, Serials, pp. 9‐11.
- 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.
- Myhill, M. (2005), “Google Scholar”, Charleston Advisor, Vol. 6 No. 4.
- Notess, G.R. (2005), “Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 39‐41.
- O'Leary, M. (2005), “Google Scholar: what's in it for you?”, Information Today, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 35‐9.
- 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/.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wleklinski, J.M. (2005), “Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage?”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 22‐6.
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 Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 · Cited by 1,002
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687
Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis
Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galán, D., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Dormido, S. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010 · Cited by 651
The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Performance in Education Sciences
Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2012) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9264-5 · Cited by 338
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)
- 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
- 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
