Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Google Scholar for Bibliometrics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Google Scholar for Bibliometrics

2,121

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 …

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
2,121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
76
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
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
  • Transcript

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

    ×