CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar

Shultz, Mary·2007·Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Google Scholar help: about Google Scholar. [Web docu- ment]. Mountain View, CA: Google, 2005 [cited Aug 2006]. Ͻhttp://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.htmlϾ.
  2. Kesselman M, Watstein SB. Google Scholar(tm) and li- braries: point/counterpoint. Ref Serv Rev 2005; 33(4):380-7.
  3. Abbasi K. Simplicity and complexity in health care: what medicine can learn from Google and iPod. J R Soc Med 2005 Sep;98(9):389.
  4. Felter LM. Google Scholar, Scirus, and the scholarly search revolution. Searcher 2005 Feb;13(2):43-8.
  5. Giles J. Science in the Web age: start your engines. Nature 2005 Dec 1;438(7068):554-5.
  6. Notess GR. Scholarly Web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online 2005 Jul-Aug;29(4):39-41.
  7. Giustini D, Barsky E. A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations. J CHLA/J ABSC 2005;26:85-9.
  8. Vine R. Google Scholar [electronic resources review]. J Med Libr Assoc 2006 Jan;94(1):97-9.
  9. Myhill M. The ADVISOR reviews . . . Google Scholar. [Web document]. The Charleston ADVISOR 2005 Apr;6(4). [cited Sep 2006]. Ͻhttp://www.charlestonco.com/ review.cfm?idϭ225Ͼ.
  10. Gardner S, Eng S. Gaga over Google? Scholar in the so- cial sciences. Library Hi Tech News 2005;8:42-5.
  11. Friend FJ. Google Scholar: potentially good for users of academic information. J Electronic Publishing [serial online]. 2006 Jan;9(1). [cited Sep 2006]. Ͻhttp://hdl.handle.net/ 2027/spo.3336451.0009.105Ͼ.
  12. Steinbrook R. Searching for the right search: reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med 2006 Jan 5;354(1):4-7.
  13. Wleklinski JM. Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage? Online 2005 May-Jun;29(3):22-6.
  14. Jacso P. 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 2005 Nov;89(9):1537-47.
  15. Tennant R. Google, the naked emperor. Libr J 2005 Aug; 130(13):29.
  16. Crawford W. Google: a company, not a religion. ECon- tent 2005 Nov;28(11):42.
  17. Henderson J. Google Scholar: a source for clinicians? CMAJ 2005 Jun 7;172(12):1549-50.
  18. Giustini D. How Google is changing medicine. BMJ 2005 Dec 24;331(7531):1487-8.
  19. Turner AM, Liddy ED, Bradley J, Wheatley JA. Modeling public health interventions for improved access to the gray literature. J Med Libr Assoc 2005 Oct;93(4):487-94.
  20. Hillan J. Physician use of patient-centered Weblogs and online journals. Clin Med Res 2003;1(4):333-5.
  21. Mishne G. Experiments with mood classification in blog posts. In: Style2005: The 1st Workshop on Stylistic Analysis of Text for Information Access, SIGIR 2005; Salvador, Brazil; Aug 15-19, 2005.
  22. Oransky I. Cancer blogs. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(11):838-9.
  23. Anjewierden A, Hoog DE, Brussee R, Efimova L. Detect- ing knowledge flows in Weblogs. Presented at: 13th Inter- national Conference on Conceptual Structures. [Web docu- ment]. [cited 13 Jan 2006]. Ͻhttp://anjo.blogs.com/metis/ articles/kflows-pub.pdfϾ.
  24. Cayzer S. Semantic blogging and decentralized knowl- edge management. Commun ACM 2005;47(12):47-52.
  25. Gumbrecht M. Blogs as protected space. [Web docu- ment]. Presented at: WWW 2004: Workshop on the Web- logging Ecosytem: Aggregation, Analysis, and Dynamis. [cited 3 Mar 2006]. Ͻhttp://www.blogpulse.com/papers/ www2004gumbrecht.pdfϾ.
  26. Kahn R, Kellner D. New media and Internet activism: from the battle of Seattle to blogging. New Media Soc 2004; 6(1):87-95.
  27. Johnson JD. Cancer-related information seeking. Cres- skill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1997.
  28. White MD. Questioning behavior on a consumer health electronic list. Libr Q 2000;70(3):302-34.
  29. Papacharissi Z, Rubin AM. Predictors of Internet use. J Broadcast Electron Media 2000 Spring;44:175-96.
  30. Chen HM, Cooper MD. Using clustering techniques to detect usage patterns in a Web-based information system. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2001;52(11):888-904.
  31. Frank RE, Green PE. Numerical taxonomy in marketing analysis: a review article. J Mark Res 1968;5:83-98.
  32. Milligan GW. An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psy- chometrika 1980;45:325-42.
  33. SPSS. SPSS base 13.0 user's guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004.
  34. Mojena R. Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: an evaluation. Comput J 1977;20:359-63.
  35. Shaaban S, McKechnie J, Lockley S. Modeling informa- tion seeking behavior of AEC professionals on online tech- nical information resources. ITcon 2003;8:265-81. REFERENCES
  36. Guterman L. The promise and peril of ''open access.'' Chron High Educ 2004 Jan 30;50(21):A10-4.
  37. Watson LA, Login IS, Burns JM. Exploring new ways of publishing: a library-faculty partnership. J Med Libr Assoc 2003 Apr;91(2):245-7.
  38. Yiotis K. The Open Access Initiative: a new paradigm for scholarly communications. Inf Tech Libr 2005 Dec;24(4):157- 62.
  39. Bergman SS. The scholarly communication movement: highlights and recent developments. Collect Build 2006; 25(4):108-28.
  40. Johnson RK. Will research sharing keep pace with the In- ternet? J Neurosci 2006 Sep 16;26(37):9349-51.
  41. Van Orsdel LC, Born K. Serial wars: as open access gains ground, STM publishers change tactics, and librarians ask hard questions. Libr J 2007 Apr 15;132(7):43-8.
  42. Kroth PJ, Aspinall EE, Phillips HE. The National Insti- tutes of Health (NIH) Policy on Enhancing Public Access: tracking institutional contribution rates. J Med Libr Assoc 2006 Jul;94(3):279-83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Shultz, M.
Venue
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
Publisher
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Published
2007-10
Volume
95
Issue
4
Pages
442-445
ISSN
  • 1536-5050
  • 1558-9439
DOI
10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442
Cited by
174
References
1

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