Google Scholar
Can it really be used for bibliometrics?
Isobel Stark & Michael Whitton
June 2011
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?
2
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
3
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.
4
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)
5
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
10
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
11
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
12
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.
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
References
• BAR-ILAN, J. 2008. Which h-index? — A comparison of
WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, 257271.
• 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 hindex using Google Scholar. Online Information Review,
32, 437-452.
19
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.
20