Google Scholar for Bibliometrics

2,788 views
2,637 views

Published on

Google Scholar: Can it Really Be Used for Bibliometrics? by Isobel Stark and Michael Whitton, University of Southampton. Presentation at the Research Evaluation: Is It Our Business? The Role of Librarians in the Brave New World of Research Evaluation 29 June 2011, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston Campus.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,788
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
83
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Metrics are generally a higher number - Bibliometrics calculated on GS are generally higher than those calculated on (eg.) WoS, but this varies by discipline
  • Google Scholar *was* designed for bibliometrics, just not necessarily for g-index and h-index (it does citation counting
  • Quadsearch http://quadsearch.csd.auth.gr/index.php?lan=1&s=2 (i.e. the ‘Science’ search) Scholar H-index Calculator https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/45283 (add-on for the Mozilla Firefox browser, adds metrics to the standard Google Scholar site, easy to use but only calculates for the articles on the current page, a maximum of 100) Scholarometer http://scholarometer.indiana.edu/ (add-on for the Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome browsers – appears as a sidebar when installed) Publish or Perish http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm (application that calculates a wide variety of metrics
  • CVs – h-index increasingly mandated for Performance/Personal Development Reviews
  • BAR-ILAN, J. 2008. Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 74, 257-271. JACSO, P. 2008. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32 , 437-452.
  • FRANCESCHET, M. 2009. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 83, 243-258. Academics at University of Udine, high impact computer science journals LEVINE-CLARK, M. & GIL, E. 2009. A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33, 986-996. Highly downloaded articles from Elsevier social sciences journals
  • LEE, J., KRAUS, K. L. & COULDWELL, W. T. 2009. Use of thehindex in neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111 , 387-392. Research outputs from 3 UK Business schools MINGERS, J. & LIPITAKIS, E. A. E. C. G. 2010. Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85 , 613-625. Random sample of academic neurosurgeons
  • Library Research Guides www.soton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics Deskside Training 1-2-1 training for staff & research postgraduates Planned session for research postgraduates Delivered through the Graduate School training programme to compliment our Open Access, e-theses, Academic Copyright and Current Awareness sessions
  • Google Scholar’s subject classification is variable – fails to correctly classify some, thus reducing recall and therefore calculated h-index
  • Google Scholar for Bibliometrics

    1. 1. Google Scholar Can it really be used for bibliometrics? <ul><li>Isobel Stark & Michael Whitton June 2011 </li></ul>
    2. 2. Google Scholar <ul><li>Historical background? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar released (in beta) in 2004 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not the first freely available citation database (CiteSeer, Scirus, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not subject specific </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is it a viable alternative to ‘traditional’ citation databases such as Web of Science? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Pros of Google Scholar <ul><li>Easy to access and free </li></ul><ul><li>Indexes a wide range of articles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Especially Law, Humanities, Social Sciences </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can find a wider range of metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Metrics are generally a higher number </li></ul>
    4. 4. Cons of Google Scholar <ul><li>Questionable data </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of de-duplication </li></ul><ul><li>Gaps </li></ul><ul><li>Relies on algorithms </li></ul><ul><li>Not designed for popular bibliometric measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires add-ons to calculate h -index etc. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Recommended services ( h -index on GS) <ul><li>Quadsearch (Any browser) </li></ul><ul><li>Scholar H -index Calculator (Mozilla Firefox) </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarometer (Mozilla Firefox/Google Chrome) </li></ul><ul><li>Publish or Perish (Separate Application) </li></ul>
    6. 10. How our researchers use it <ul><li>CVs and bids for funding </li></ul><ul><li>Preferred by Medicine over InCites </li></ul><ul><li>Factsheet for “Finding your h -index in Google Scholar” is very popular </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6,764 visits in the last year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To compare WoS h -Index guide is 1,559 and Impact Factors 1,045 </li></ul></ul>
    7. 11. From the literature … <ul><li>Bar-Illan (2008) – Israeli highly cited researchers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant differences from WoS and Scopus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metrics can be higher (computer science), similar or lower (physics) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Jasco (2008) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problems of missing & wrong authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prolific authors F Password & M Profile </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific problems often resolved </li></ul></ul>
    8. 12. Subject specific studies <ul><li>Franceshet (2009) – Computer Science </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar metrics are much higher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant correlation (but varies by type of metric) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance of proceedings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Levine-Clark (2009) – Social Sciences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant value of using Google Scholar in addition to WoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant value in journals not indexed by WoS & coverage of books </li></ul></ul>
    9. 13. Subject specific studies … <ul><li>Lee (2009) – Neurosurgery </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant correlation between Google Scholar and Scopus </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mingers (2010) – Business & Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of reliability and transparency of Google Scholar, but potential for a more comprehensive and less subject dependant analysis. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 14. The h -index: WoS vs Google Scholar <ul><li>Prof. Nigel Shadbolt (Computer Science) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 16 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar: 23 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dr Simon Coles (Chemistry) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 36 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar 22 </li></ul></ul>
    11. 15. The h -index: WoS vs Google Scholar … <ul><li>Prof. Sally Brailsford (Management) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 9 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar: 13 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prof. Christian Ottensmeier (Medicine) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 19 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar: 19 </li></ul></ul>
    12. 16. The h -index: WoS vs Google Scholar … <ul><li>Prof. Jane Falkingham (Social Sciences) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 7 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar: 23 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dr Joanna Sofaer (Archaeology) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS: 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Scholar: 9 </li></ul></ul>
    13. 17. Supporting bibliometrics <ul><li>Library research guides </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.soton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deskside training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1-2-1 training for staff & research postgraduates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Planned session for research postgraduates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>delivered through the Graduate School training programme </li></ul></ul>
    14. 18. Conclusions <ul><li>Some variation by subject </li></ul><ul><li>Significant issues with quality of the data </li></ul><ul><li>Can be useful to use in addition to Web of Science and/or Scopus </li></ul>
    15. 19. References <ul><li>BAR-ILAN, J. 2008. Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 74, 257-271. </li></ul><ul><li>FRANCESCHET, M. 2009. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 83, 243-258. </li></ul><ul><li>JACSO, P. 2008. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32 , 437-452. </li></ul>
    16. 20. References … <ul><li>LEVINE-CLARK, M. & GIL, E. 2009. A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33 , 986-996. </li></ul><ul><li>LEE, J., KRAUS, K. L. & COULDWELL, W. T. 2009. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111 , 387-392. </li></ul><ul><li>MINGERS, J. & LIPITAKIS, E. A. E. C. G. 2010. Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85 , 613-625. </li></ul>

    ×