Biblioteca Complutense :: Google Académico

Inicio » » La biblioteca informa al bibliotecario » Infodoc

Google Académico

Monográficos
Universidad de Salamanca
Facultad de Traducción y Documentación
B iblioteca
http://sabus.usal.es/docu/
alar@usal.es

GOOGLE Académico
InfoDoc 9 de diciembre de 2008

¿Qué es Google Académico?
http://scholar.google.es/

En 2006, Google puso en línea Google Académico, versión en español del conocido Google Scholar. Se trata del Google científico que te permite buscar bibliografía especializada de una manera sencilla. Desde un solo sitio podrás realizar búsquedas en un gran número disciplinas y fuentes como, por ejemplo, estudios revisados por especialistas, tesis, libros, resúmenes y artículos de fuentes como editoriales académicas, sociedades profesionales, depósitos de impresiones preliminares, universidades y otras organizaciones académicas. Google Académico te ayuda a encontrar el material más relevante dentro del mundo de la investigación académica.

Características de Google Académico

Buscar en diversas fuentes desde un solo sitio
Encontrar documentos académicos, resúmenes y citas
Localizar documentos académicos completos a través de tu biblioteca o en la red
Obtener información acerca de documentos académicos clave en un campo de investigación

¿Cómo se clasifican los artículos?

Google Académico ordena los resultados de tu búsqueda por orden de relevancia Así, al igual que sucede con las búsquedas web en Google, las referencias más útiles aparecerán al inicio de la página. La tecnología de ranking de Google toma en consideración el texto completo de cada artículo, así como el autor, dónde fue publicado y con qué asiduidad ha sido citado en otras fuentes especializadas.

Bibliografía
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            1.                 "Downloads vs. Citations: Relationships, Contributing Factors and Beyond". E-LIS, 2007. http://eprints.rclis.org/12678/

Descriptores: Google académico/digital libraries

Resumen: Citations to 200 top downloaded papers at RePEc, a digital library in economics, were obtained from SSCI and Google Scholar respectively to address questions relating to downloads and their corresponding citations. This study finds that top downloaded documents are used in various degrees when citation is regarded as an indicator of usage. Results also show that a single downloaded paper selected for this study on average receives twice as many citations from Google Scholar as that from SSCI although the latter has been established much earlier in time. According to the coefficients computed, downloads appear having a moderate relationship with citations. However, other measures such as the download vs citation ratio indicate a stronger connection between the two. While author+óGé¼Gäós reputation positively affect both download and citation frequencies, other factors (e.g., targeted readers and subject content) seem in play differently for the documents that are repeatedly downloaded or cited. In a nutshell, an infrastructure that encourages downloading at digital libraries would eventually lead to higher usage of their resources.

            2.                Banks, M. A., "The excitement of Google Scholar, the worry of Google Print". Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2005. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/pdf/1742-5581-2-2.pdf

Descriptores: Google/Motores de búsqueda/Comunicación científica/Acceso abierto

Resumen: In late 2004 Google announced two major projects, the unveiling of Google Scholar and a major expansion of the Google Print digitization program. Both projects have generated discussion within the library and research communities, and Google Print has received significant media attention. This commentary describes exciting educational possibilities stimulated by Google Scholar, and argues for caution regarding the Google Print project.

            3.                Bérard, R. and Gibert, J., "Le Sudoc dans Google Scholar ". Bulletin des biblioth ques de France, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2008. http://bbf.enssib.fr/sdx/BBF/pdf/bbf-2008-2/bbf-2008-02-0064-011.pdf

Descriptores: Google Scholar

Resumen: L'Abes (Agence bibliographique de l'enseignement supérieur), consciente de la prépondérance de Google dans les recherches des étudiants et des chercheurs, a signé un contrat avec celui-ci afin que les données du Sudoc (Syst me universitaire de documentation) soient indexées dans Google Scholar, apr s s' tre assurée de la préservation de ses intér ts et de ceux de ses partenaires. Premier bilan neuf mois apr s le démarrage pour cet accord, certes emblématique, mais qui ne constitue qu'un élément de la stratégie globale de l'Abes pour assurer une meilleure visibilité aux ressources des biblioth ques universitaires françaises sur le web.

            4.                Cahill, K., "Google Tools on the Public Reference Desk.". Reference Librarian, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2007, pp. 67-79. http://www.haworthpress.com/store/E-Text/View_EText.asp?sid=SCC2A7DG8JTR9G0ETR0XKX4KN10S7197&a=3&s=J120&v=48&i=99&fn=J120v48n99%5F05

Descriptores: Google/Servicios de información bibliográfica

Resumen: This article examines the potential implications of some of the new technologies emerging from Google, and how information professionals can maximize their effectiveness. It takes an in-depth look at a number of the tools, including Google Earth, Google Trends, Google Scholar, and Google Books, and focuses on some of the more practical and innovative uses for these tools at the reference desk.

            5.                Christoph Neuhaus and Hans-Dieter Daniel, "Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview". Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2008. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00220410810858010

Descriptores: Análisis de citas/Bibliometría/Estadísticas

Resumen: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

            6.                Dirk Pieper and Friedrich Summann, "Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE): An end-user oriented institutional repository search service". Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2006. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4637A2C698DBA91DADED

Descriptores: Motores de búsqueda/Repositorios institucionales/Búsquedas bibliográficas/Archivos abiertos

Resumen: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe the activities of Bielefeld University Library in establishing OAI based repository servers and in using OAI resources for end-user-oriented search services like Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE). Design/methodology/approach - Discusses OAI based repository servers. Findings - BASE is able to integrate external functions of Google Scholar. The search engine technology can replace or amend the search functions of a given repository software. BASE can also be embedded in external repository environments. Originality/value - The paper provides an overview of the functionalities of BASE and gives insight into the challenges that have to be faced when harvesting and integrating resources from multiple OAI servers.

            7.                Domingus, M., "OAI, Google Scholar and Wikipedia are the answers, but what is the question?". E-LIS, 2005. http://eprints.rclis.org/7253/

Descriptores: Google académico/Google Scholar, Wikipedia, OAI, Open Archives Initiative, Knowledge representation, Information exchange, DARE community, Online collaborative free services, Collaboratories, Philosophy of science, Scholarship

Resumen: Some of the questions raised are: 1. what types of presenting knowledge matter these days - and why? 2. for what type of communities (learning communities, communities focused on innovation) do they matter? What can be learned from the way science works within the rich spectrum of disciplines with respect to providing information: is the scientific method more debate-related or more focused on reproduction of experiments and how could OAI (dataproviders / services) play a role in these different approaches? 3. What is to be expected from different online collaborative +óGé¼GÇ£ supposedly free - services and what general remarks can be made about their interoperability and functionality? 4. What are the quality assuring mechanisms in different communities and how can we translate these principles to further research or mere fruitful information exchange? I believe these are questions that should be raised to see also more clearly the impact of OAI. Within the Dutch context we have some experience with OAI via the DARE community, which can illustrate specific topics.

            8.                Hartman, K. A. and Mullen, L. B., "Google Scholar and Academic Libraries: An Update". E-LIS, Vol. 109, No. 5/6, 2008, pp. 211-222. http://eprints.rclis.org/13820/

Descriptores: Google académico/Google Scholar, library web site, federated search, scholarly search engine

Resumen: Purpose: This paper updates the authors+óGé¼Gäó original 2005 study of Google Scholar+óGé¼Gäós integration into ARL libraries web sites. Had more ARL libraries added Google Scholar? Design/methodology/approach: The library homepages of the 113 ARL academic institutions were examined for paths or links to Google Scholar. The coding scheme focused on noting if Google Scholar appeared on the library homepage, in the OPAC, and on various database lists and subject guides. Findings: The 2007 data indicate continued acceptance of Google Scholar and integration of this resource on the web pages of ARL libraries. The mean number of paths to Google Scholar more than doubled from 2005 to 2007. Partnering institutions were more likely to include paths to Google Scholar and the number of partnering institutions dramatically increased. Practical implications: This study is useful for those making decisions about integration of Google Scholar into library collections and services, particularly the web site. Orginality/value: This paper illustrates future directions for integrating new categories of resources into the academic library web site.

            9.                Jacs£, P., "Google Scholar revisited". Online Information Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, pp. 102-114. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=40CE99C04733EB2D613B

Descriptores: Google Scholar/Ranking

Resumen: 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.

            10.              Jacs£, P., "The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases". Online Information Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2008, pp. 266-283. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4E85967904E192FB79D0

Descriptores: Indización/Producción científica/Impacto/Bases de datos/Indización automática

Resumen: Purpose - This paper aims to provide a general overview, to be followed by a series of papers focusing on the analysis of pros and cons of the three largest, cited-reference-enhanced, multidisciplinary databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) for determining the h-index. Design/methodology/approach - The paper focuses on the analysis of pros and cons of the three largest, cited-reference-enhanced, multidisciplinary databases (Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science). Findings - The h-index, developed by Jorge E. Hirsch to quantify the scientific output of researchers, has immediately received well-deserved attention in academia. The theoretical part of his idea was widely embraced, and even enhanced, by several researchers. Many of them also recommended derivative metrics based on Hirsch's idea to compensate for potential distortion factors, such as high self-citation rates. The practical aspects of determining the h-index also need scrutiny, because some content and software characteristics of reference-enhanced databases can strongly influence the h-index values. Originality/value - The paper focuses on the analysis of pros and cons of the three largest, cited-reference-enhanced, multidisciplinary databases.

            11.              Jung, S., Herlocker, J. L., Webster, J., Mellinger, M., and Frumkin, J., "LibraryFind: System design and usability testing of academic metasearch system". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59, No. 3, 2008, pp. 375-389. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=450AA04E5FBF6992E493

Descriptores: Bibliotecas universitarias/Usabilidad/Metabuscadores/Recursos electrónicos

Resumen: Using off-the-shelf search technology provides a single point of access into library resources, but we found that such commercial systems are not entirely satisfactory for the academic library setting. In response to this, Oregon State University (OSU) Libraries designed and deployed LibraryFind, a metasearch system. We conducted a usability experiment comparing LibraryFind, the OSU Libraries Web site, and Google Scholar. Each participant used all three search systems in a controlled setting, and we recorded their behavior to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of each search system. In this article, we focus on understanding what factors are important to undergraduates in choosing their primary academic search system for class assignments. Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results, we found that mimicking commercial Web search engines is an important factor to attract undergradu-ates; however, when undergraduates use these kinds of search engines, they expect similar performance to Web search engines, including factors such as relevance, speed, and the availability of a spell checker. They also expected to be able to find out what kinds of content and materials are available in a system. Participants' prior experience using academic search systems also affected their expectations of a new system.

            12.              Kaden, B., "+£ber Google Scholar". E-LIS, 2006. http://eprints.rclis.org/5318/

Descriptores: Google académico/Search Engine, Google Scholar

Resumen: Subsidiary text version of a lecture held at the Department of Library and Information Science/Humboldt-University to Berlin on January 2nd 2006. Basic elements and pros and cons of +óGé¼+ôGoogle Scholar+óGé¼-¥ as it is available to date (jan 2006) are delineated.

            13.              Kesen, S., +à++enol, C., and Yanar, Z., "Google Scholar ve Scirus Arama Motorlar+ä-_nda T+â-+rk+â-ºe Anahtar S+â-¦zc+â-+klerle Yap+ä-_lan Aramalar +â+ôzerine Bir De+ä++erlendirme". E-LIS, Vol. 9, 2008, pp. 140-157. http://eprints.rclis.org/13214/

Descriptores: Google académico/Bilgi eri+à++im, arama motorlar+ä-_, Google Scholar, Scirus, T+â-+rk+â-ºe, +â-¦zel karakterler

Resumen: Due to the rapid growth of information on the Internet, search engines are used to getting information included in documents created in different languages. This paper aims to find out if the two search engines providing access to Open Access information sources, Google Scholar and Scirus, display the search results appropriately for special Turkish characters (+â-º, +ä++, +ä-_, +â-¦, +à++, +â-+) and to evaluate them on the basis of the total number of retrieved documents. Both search engines displayed the Turkish special characters correctly, but the search results differed. These differences create information retrieval problems for Turkish queries. Metadata of the Open Access Turkish information sources should be created using special Turkish characters and search engines should be developed to support them.

            14.              Kloda, L. A., "Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking". Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2007. http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00011437/

Descriptores: Google/Scopus/Web of Science/Indices de citas

Resumen: Objective - To determine whether three competing citation tracking services result in differing citation counts for a known set of articles, and to assess the extent of any differences. Design - Citation analysis, observational study. Setting - Three citation tracking databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Subjects - Citations from eleven journals each from the disciplines of oncology and condensed matter physics for the years 1993 and 2003. Methods - The researchers selected eleven journals each from the list of journals from Journal Citation Reports 2004 for the categories "Oncology" and "Condensed Matter Physics" using a systematic sampling technique to ensure journals with varying impact factors were included. All references from these 22 journals were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003 by searching three databases: Web of Science, INSPEC, and PubMed. Only research articles were included for the purpose of the study. From these, a stratified random sample was created to proportionally represent the content of each journal (oncology 1993: 234 references, 2003: 259 references; condensed matter physics 1993: 358 references, 2003: 364 references). In November of 2005, citations counts were obtained for all articles from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Due to the small sample size and skewed distribution of data, non-parametric tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between sets.

            15.              Kloda, L. A., "Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking". E-LIS, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2007, pp. 87-90. http://eprints.rclis.org/11437/

Descriptores: Google académico/citation database, citation index, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar

Resumen: Objective +óGé¼GÇ£ To determine whether three competing citation tracking services result in differing citation counts for a known set of articles, and to assess the extent of any differences. Design +óGé¼GÇ£ Citation analysis, observational study. Setting +óGé¼GÇ£ Three citation tracking databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Subjects +óGé¼GÇ£ Citations from eleven journals each from the disciplines of oncology and condensed matter physics for the years 1993 and 2003. Methods +óGé¼GÇ£ The researchers selected eleven journals each from the list of journals from Journal Citation Reports 2004 for the categories +óGé¼+ôOncology+óGé¼-¥ and +óGé¼+ôCondensed Matter Physics+óGé¼-¥ using a systematic sampling technique to ensure journals with varying impact factors were included. All references from these 22 journals were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003 by searching three databases: Web of Science, INSPEC, and PubMed. Only research articles were included for the purpose of the study. From these, a stratified random sample was created to proportionally represent the content of each journal (oncology 1993: 234 references, 2003: 259 references; condensed matter physics 1993: 358 references, 2003: 364 references). In November of 2005, citations counts were obtained for all articles from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Due to the small sample size and skewed distribution of data, non-parametric tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between sets. Main results +óGé¼GÇ£ For 1993, mean citation counts were highest in Web of Science for both oncology (mean = 45.3, SD = 77.4) and condensed matter physics (mean = 22.5, SD = 32.5). For 2003, mean citation counts were higher in Scopus for oncology (mean = 8.9, SD = 12.0), and in Web of Science for condensed matter physics (mean = 3.0, SD = 4.0). There was not enough data for the set of citations from Scopus for condensed matter physics for 1993 and it was therefore excluded from analysis. A Friedman test to measure for differences between all remaining groups suggested a significant difference existed, and so pairwise post-hoc comparisons were performed. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranked tests demonstrated significant differences +óGé¼+ôin citation counts between all pairs (p 0.001) except between Google Scholar and Scopus for CM physics 2003 (p = 0.119).+óGé¼-¥ The study also looked at the number of unique references from each database, as well as the proportion of overlap for the 2003 citations. In the area of oncology, there was found to be 31% overlap between databases, with Google Scholar including the most unique references (13%), followed by Scopus (12%) and Web of Science (7%). For condensed matter physics, the overlap was lower at 21% and the largest number of unique references was found in Web of Science (21%), with Google Scholar next largest (17%) and Scopus the least (9%). Citing references from Google Scholar were found to originate from not only journals, but online archives, academic repositories, government and non-government white papers and reports, commercial organizations, as well as other sources. Conclusion +óGé¼GÇ£ The study does not confirm the authors+óGé¼Gäó hypothesis that differing scholarly coverage would result in different citation counts from the three databases. While there were significant differences in mean citation rates between all pairs of databases except for Google Scholar and Scopus in condensed matter physics for 2003, no one database performed better overall. Different databases performed better for different subjects, as well as for different years, especially Scopus, which only includes references starting in 1996. The results of this study suggest that the best citation database will depend on the years being searched as well as the subject area. For a complete picture of citation behaviour, the authors suggest all three be used.

            16.              Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M., "Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 7, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20584

Descriptores: Google/Citas bibliográficas/Análisis de citas/Acceso abierto/Science Citation Index

Resumen: We use a new data gathering method, ?Web/URL citation,? Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

            17.              Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M., "Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL Citations: A Multi-Discipline Exploratory Analysis". E-LIS, 2006. http://eprints.rclis.org/6416/

Descriptores: Google académico/google scholar, web citations, URL citations

Resumen: In this paper we introduce a new data gathering method +óGé¼+ôWeb/URL Citation+óGé¼-¥ and use it and Google Scholar as a basis to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines. For this, we built a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 Open Access (OA) journals published in 2001 in four science and four social science disciplines. We recorded the number of citations to the sample articles using several methods based upon the ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Google search engine (Web/URL citations). For each discipline, we found significant correlations between ISI citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations; with similar results when using total or average citations, and when comparing within and across (most) journals. We also investigated disciplinary differences. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in our four social science disciplines as well as in computer science, suggesting that Google Scholar is a more comprehensive tool for citation tracking in the social sciences and perhaps also in fast-moving fields where conference papers are highly valued and published online. The results for Web/URL citations suggested that counting a maximum of one hit per site produces a better measure for assessing the impact of OA journals or articles, because replicated web citations are very common within individual sites. The results can be considered as additional evidence that there is some commonality between traditional and Web-extracted citations.

            18.              Kurz, N., "Der Einsatz von Google Scholar dargestellt an ausgew+â-ñhlten Universit+â-ñtsbibliotheken im Raum Wien". Informationsberufe, 2008. http://eprints.rclis.org/15241/

Descriptores: Google académico/Suchmaschine, Wissenschaftssuchmaschine, Universit+â-ñtsbibliothek, Google Scholar, Volltextdatenbank, academic search engine, university library, academic library, Google Scholar, full-text database, search engine

Resumen: In the last few years a number of academic search engines have been developed to simplify the search for academic documents. Examples of such search engines are SciTopia, Worldwidescience and Google Scholar amongst others, but this paper only focuses on the tracing service of Google. Google Scholar scans exclusively academic documents but payment is required if someone wants to download the full text of a document. However, Google Scholar permits access to all abstracts of the documents. This thesis aims at identifying possible reasons for the application of academic search engines in academic libraries, how they work and what kind of special features they have. First, a review of current literature is undertaken in order to describe the state of the art. On the one hand, there are only a few books available about this issue. Nevertheless, there are lots of online articles on the internet, which are very interesting to give some basic information. Then, qualitative interviews are conducted with employees of academic libraries in Vienna which aims at assessing the relevance of the use of academic search engines in academic libraries and whether or not it is possible to link these search engines with common library databases. The main outcome of this thesis is that academic search engines like Google Scholar can be helpful for the researchers to find any literature on a specific topic, but they can never replace databases used in academic libraries. The findings suggest that many librarians would recommend Google Scholar in addition to common literature searches.

            19.              Levine-Clark, M. and Kraus, J., "Finding Chemistry Information using Google Scholar: A Comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service". E-LIS, 2006. http://eprints.rclis.org/8633/

Descriptores: Google académico/Google, Google Scholar, SciFinder Scholar, Chemical Abstracts Service, CAS

Resumen: Since its introduction in November 2004, Google Scholar has been the subject of considerable discussion among librarians. Though there has been much concern about the lack of transparency of the product, there has been relatively little direct comparison between Google Scholar and traditional library resources. This study compares Google Scholar and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) as resources for finding chemistry information. Of the 702 records found in six different searches, 65.1% were in Google Scholar and 45.1% were in CAS. Of these, 55.0% were unique to Google Scholar, 34.9% were unique to CAS, and 10.1% overlapped. When each record found was searched by title in the two databases, the figures change, with 79.5% in Google Scholar, 85.6% in CAS, and 65.1% overlapping. Based on this, researchers are more likely to find known published information through CAS than in Google Scholar. Results vary by type of search, type of resource, and date. For many types of searching, CAS performs significantly better than Google Scholar. This is especially true for searches on compounds or a personal name, both of which take advantage of advanced search features in CAS. For simple keyword searches, Google Scholar tends to perform better, most likely because Google Scholar searches through the full text of journal articles, while a keyword search through CAS only finds abstract and index terms.

            20.              Lewandowski, D., "Nachweis deutschsprachiger bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlicher Aufs+â-ñtze in Google Scholar [References to German LIS articles in Google Scholar]". E-LIS, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2007, pp. 165-168. http://eprints.rclis.org/10015/

Descriptores: Google académico/Suchmaschine, Bibliothekswissenschaft, Information und Dokumentation, Zeitschrift, Google Scholar, Fachgebietsabdeckung, Volltext, library and information science, Google Scholar, coverage ratio

Resumen: In this study, we ask if Google Scholar is suitable for finding articles in library and information science. Therefore, we check if articles published from 2004-2006 from the eight major German language LIS periodicals can be found in Google Scholar. We find that Google Scholar does not give bibliographic data for all articles and is therefore no substitute for bibliographic databases. But, Google Scholar makes available a certain amount of the articles in full text. Therefore, in some cases it can be a fast and unproblematic way for obtaining full texts, omitting the traditional way of visiting the library or interlibrary loan. For library and information science, Google Scholar could be a good way to make its articles available to a wider audience.

            21.              Leydesdorff, L. and Vaughan, L., "Co-Occurrence Matrices and Their Applications in Information Science: Extending Aca to the Web Environment". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57, No. 12, 2006. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc/76501873/

Descriptores: Redes sociales/Google/Documentación/Estadística/Bibliometría

Resumen: Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.

            22.              Mart+¡nez Morilla, J. A., Ru+¡z Caballero, J. A., and Brito Ojeda, E., "Mart+¡nez Morilla, Julio A. and Ru+¡z Caballero, Jos+_ Antonio and Brito Ojeda, Estrella (2007) Estrategias de b+¦squeda para la psicolog+¡a de la competici+¦n deportiva en Google acad+_mico vs. Medline, Sportdiscus y Psycinfo. [Book Chapter] (In Press)". E-LIS, 2007. http://eprints.rclis.org/12837/

Descriptores: Google académico/Medline, SportDiscus, Psycinfo, Google acad+_mico, psicolog+¡a del alto rendimiento deportivo, psicolog+¡a de la competici+¦n, b+¦squeda documental. Medline, SportDiscus, Psycinfo, Google scholar, sport competition psychology, document search

Resumen: Las estrategias de b+¦squeda en las bases de datos Medline, SportDiscus, Psycinfo, y en el motor de b+¦squeda Google Acad+_mico presentan una serie de particularidades en la recuperaci+¦n de informaci+¦n sobre psicolog+¡a de la competici+¦n deportiva. Hemos consultado a profesores que imparten dicha materia del Departamento de Educaci+¦n F+¡sica de la ULPGC para establecer la terminolog+¡a en castellano y en ingl+_s. Los documentos recuperados son en su mayor+¡a art+¡culos de publicaciones peri+¦dicas y del +írea angl+¦fona. Como resultados se dan los t+_rminos m+ís pertinentes para recuperar dicha informaci+¦n y la comparativa entre lo recuperado de las bases de datos especializadas y de Google Acad+_mico.

            23.              Mayr, P., "Google Scholar - How deep does this search engine dig?". E-LIS, 2005, pp. 1-1. http://eprints.rclis.org/4499/

Descriptores: Google académico/Search Engine, Google Scholar, Webometrics, Journal coverage

Resumen: The poster shows first results from the Google Scholar search engine. The empirical study analyses different journal lists (STM journals, Open Access journals and German social sciences journals). We analysed the coverage and actuality of this new scientific Google service and found gaps in Google Scholars+óGé¼Gäó journal coverage and actuality. We also can present the most important/frequent webservers where Google Scholar documents are deposited.

            24.              Meho, L. I., "The rise and rise of citation analysis". E-LIS, 2007. http://eprints.rclis.org/8340/

Descriptores: Google académico/Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Citation databases, Informetrics, h-index, Impact factor, Journal Citation Reports, Physics

Resumen: With the vast majority of scientific papers now available online, the author describes how the Web is allowing physicists and information providers to measure more accurately the impact of these papers and their authors. Provides a historical background of citation analysis, ISI's citation databases, and the impact factor. Discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Web of Science and other more recent citation data sources (e.g., Scopus and Google Scholar), the impact of the Web on citation analysis, and the emergence of new citation-based research assessment measures (e.g., h-index). Argues that the use of multiple Web-based citation tools allows more accurate visualizations of scholarly communication networks. Also argues that publishing a journal article is now only the first step in disseminating one's work.

            25.              Meho, L. I. and Rogers, Y., "Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fasi.20874

Descriptores: Análisis de citas/Bibliometría/Scopus/Web of Science/Análisis comparativo/Ranking

Resumen: This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

            26.              Meho, L. I. and Rogers, Y., "Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-Index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science". E-LIS, 2008. http://eprints.rclis.org/12942/

Descriptores: Google académico/HCI, Human-Computer Interaction, Citation Analysis, Bibliometrics, H-Index, Scholarly Communication, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science

Resumen: This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR--a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results show that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially if citations in conference proceedings are sought and that h scores should be manually calculated instead of relying on system calculations.

            27.              Meho, L. I. and Yang, K., "Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar". E-LIS, 2007. http://eprints.rclis.org/8586/

Descriptores: Google académico/Web of Science, ISI Databases, Scopus, Google Scholar, Citation Analysis, Bibliometrics, Webometrics, Web Metrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Databases, Database Evaluation, Research Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion, Scholarly Communication

Resumen: The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

            28.              Noël, É., "Google Scholar ". Bulletin des bibliothèques de France, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2005. http://bbf.enssib.fr/sdx/BBF/pdf/bbf-2005-4/bbf-2005-04-0043-009.pdf

Descriptores: Google/Motores de búsqueda

Resumen: Un nouvel outil de recherche, Google scholar, est apparu de manière confidentielle fin 2004. Simple d'utilisation, il risque de connaître le même engouement que Google basic. L'auteur de l'article en montre l'intérêt, mais aussi les limites. En cours de réalisation, certains de ses défauts seront certainement corrigés, mais il soulève déjà des questions éthiques.

            29.              Pomerantz, J., "Google Scholar and 100 Percent Availability of Information". Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2006. http://www.lita.org/ala/lita/litapublications/ital/252006/2502jun/pomerantz.pdf

Descriptores: Google Scholar

Resumen: This paper discusses Google Scholar as an extension of Kilgour's goal to improve the availability of information. Kilgour was instrumental in the early development of the online library catalog, and he proposed passage retrieval to aid in information seeking. Google Scholar is a direct descendent of these technologies foreseen by Kilgour. Google Scholar holds promise as a means for libraries to expand their reach to new user communities, and to enable libraries to provide quality resources to users during their online search process.

            30.              Rodriguez del Castillo Martín, M., Rodríguez del Aguila, M. M., Herrera Espiñeira, C., Quero Rufián, A., Matínez Cirre, C., and Lechuga Rodríguez del Castillo, F., "Presente y futuro de los servicios de las bibliotecas médicas. Revisión de la literatura y estudio realizado en un hospital de más de 1.400 camas". Revista Española de Documentación Científica, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006.

Descriptores: Google/Bibliotecas de hospitales/Servicios bibliotecarios/Hábitos de lectura/Consumo de información/Bibliotecarios/Acceso a la Información/Difusión de la Información

Resumen: En los últimos años se han producido grandes cambios en la forma de acceder a la información en medicina y esto ha incidido profundamente en las bibliotecas médicas y en el modo de organizar sus servicios. Los bibliotecarios médicos han dedicado un especial interés en tratar de adaptarse al cambiante entorno de la información y satisfacer las demandas de sus usuarios. El presente estudio, aparte de realizar una revisión del estado de la cuestión, pretende averiguar las necesidades reales de información de los médicos de un hospital de más de 1.400 camas. Para ello se realizó una amplía revisión de la literatura a través de las bases de datos Pubmed, LISA, CINAHL y Google Scholar con el fin de conocer la actualidad de los sistemas de acceso a la información en Biomedicina. También se confeccionó un cuestionario ad hoc, con el objetivo de recabar datos concretos sobre necesidades y hábitos actuales de información de los médicos del Hospital. Los cuestionarios se distribuyeron al azar entre los distintos profesionales de la división médica del Hospital. Se obtuvieron 118 cuestionarios completos de 34 servicios diferentes, cuyas preguntas se basaban en los siguientes apartados principales: utilización de los servicios de la biblioteca, tipos de documentos que se utilizan, necesidades y hábitos de consumo de información detectadas, utilización de tecnologías y selección de la información y formación de usuarios. Se concluye que la mayoría de usuarios ha incorporado los actuales sistemas de acceso a la información a la vez que siguen utilizando los tradicionales. Las tecnologías han multiplicado las posibilidades de acceso a la información, pero también han añadido nuevas necesidades a los lectores. La participación del bibliotecario se hace cada vez más activa en sus tareas de selección y organización de la información ya sea en bibliotecas presenciales como en bibliotecas virtuales.

            31.              Shaw, D. and Vaughan, L., "Publication and citation patterns among LIS faculty: Profiling a GÇ£typical professorGÇ¥". Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2008. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5R-4RM897K-1/1/67dead039e560aca64c280cc1ee81c2c

Descriptores: Documentación/Investigación/Análisis de citas

Resumen: Research on publication and citation patterns generally focuses on prolific or highly cited authors or on highly ranked programs. This study investigates the work and influence of a cross-section of library and information science (LIS) researchers at various stages of their academic lives, using a random sample of faculty members at programs accredited by the American Library Association. The analysis shows that the number of publications increases steadily as faculty rank advances. Assistant professors publish more conference papers and fewer journal articles, a pattern that is reversed with associate and full professors. Researchers used Web of Science-« and GoogleGäó Scholar to determine the influence of the publications. Web of Science reported no citations for most LIS faculty publications. With its broader scope, Google Scholar located more citations and revealed that the works of professors are cited significantly more frequently than publications by assistant or associate professors. When faculty profiles are compared by type of program, faculty members at schools granting doctoral degrees publish significantly more than their counterparts at schools where there is no doctoral program or where the doctoral degree is offered jointly with other academic units. When the comparison is made across ranks, full professors publish significantly more than faculty members at other ranks. There is no significant difference between assistant and associate professors.

            32.              Tarantino, E., "Troppo o troppo poco? Web of science, Scopus, Google Scholar: tre database a confronto". Bollettino AIB, Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2006. http://www.aib.it/aib/boll/2006/0601023.htm

Descriptores: Documentos electrónicos/Web of Science/Google/Bases de datos/Internet/Búsquedas bibliográficas/Fuentes de información

Resumen: The article presents information on several data bases including the Web of science (WoS), Scopus and Google scholar. Before, WoS was the only source that also functioned as a tool of citation indexing aside from offering bibliographic data base. In 2004 electronic periodicals publisher Elsevier proposed to try the new Scopus database. November 2004 saw the appearance of Google scholar, the new Google motor for academic research. WoS found itself competing with two databases, one of which moverover free of charge. The article presents information on several data bases including the Web of science (WoS), Scopus and Google scholar. Before, WoS was the only source that also functioned as a tool of citation indexing aside from offering bibliographic data base. In 2004 electronic periodicals publisher Elsevier proposed to try the new Scopus database. November 2004 saw the appearance of Google scholar, the new Google motor for academic research. WoS found itself competing with two databases, one of which moverover free of charge.

            33.              Tarantino, E., "Troppo o troppo poco? Web of science, Scopus, Google scholar: tre database a confronto (un caso di studio)". E-LIS, Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2006, pp. 23-34. http://eprints.rclis.org/7798/

Descriptores: Google académico/Comparazione tra banche dati, BIDS, biblioteche digitali, Universit+â-á "La Sapienza", periodici elettronici, analisi citazionale Databases comparison, ISI Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, Google Scholar, digital libraries, WOS, Institute for Scientific I

Resumen: The BIDS (Digital Library of +óGé¼+ôLa Sapienza+óGé¼-¥ project-service) was established in the +óGé¼+ôLa Sapienza+óGé¼-¥ University of Rome in 1999. Its first year of life saw the acquisition of 10 data bases and the stipulation of the first large consortium contract with a large electronic periodicals' publisher (Elsevier). The project has gradually grown to include today about 90 data bases and over 15,000 electronic periodicals. Among those first ten electronic data bases was the Web of science, the data base produced by the ISI, Institute for Scientific Information. At the time the Web of science (WoS) was the only source that apart from providing a rich bibliographic data base, also functioned as a tool of citation indexing, very much appreciated by academic users. In 2004 Elsevier proposed that we try the new Scopus database, without any costs or commitments on our part. This was not because the digital Library needed a new multidisciplinary database, but because we needed a new updated citation indexing tool. The first comparative analysis that we did therefore was on the number of periodicals examined by Scopus, to see if, on the basis of this, it were not perhaps possible to eliminate some of the disciplinary data bases to which we were subscribing. In the meantime, November 2004 saw the appearance of Google scholar, the new Google motor for academic research. It was not the first example of this kind (we must at least mention the sectorial experience of Citeseer and that of Scirus, the research engine specialized in scientific documentation, this too produced by Elsevier, and inserted into Scopus): but the popularity, authoritativeness and ambition of Google's project immediately made it a truly fearful competitor. Thus, in the space of two months, WoS found itself face to face with not one, but two competitors, one of which moreover free of charge. An investigation was therefore carried out, not to evaluate the superiority of one database over another (to do this one would have to carefully cross-examine all the comparative bibliography that is appearing with a certain regularity in recent months); but rather to help us see how these tools, even though powerful and with results that are overall more than satisfactory, cannot guarantee uniformity, consistency, real trustworthiness. The entrance in the market (or in the free territory of the net that is open to everyone, as in the case of Google) of new actors results in highlighting the gaps in a citation index, no matter what agency carries out the survey, so warning users of its inevitable lack of precision. And this process of relativization of automatic indexing mechanisms (so important especially in defining academic careers) should be considered, at least at awareness level, as a very positive result.

            34.              Vijayakumar, J. K., "Googilum academic gaveshana librarikalum". E-LIS, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2006. http://eprints.rclis.org/5663/

Descriptores: Google académico/Google Scholar, google print

Resumen: Describes about two projects of Google such as "Google Scholar" and "Google Print".It also describes how the traditional library based academic research information search can be affected by these two projects.

            35.              White, B., "Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source". LIANZA (Library and Information Association of New Zealand, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2006, pp. 11-24. http://eprints.rclis.org/7657/

Descriptores: Google académico/Google Scholar, Search Engines, Scholarly Information, New Zealand

Resumen: Since its introduction in mid 2004 the Google Scholar search engine has been the subject of considerable interest within the library community and has been the subject of both excitement and criticism. While applauding its ambitious scope various writers have pointed out its shortcomings through unfavourable comparisons with the traditional scholarly databases. This article summarises the debate and then critically examines Google Scholar through a number of practical examples concluding that in terms of its coverage and functionality it outperforms traditional databases in locating a major portion of the available information.

            36.              Zainab, A. N., Huzaimah, A. R., and Ang, T. F., "Using journal use study feedback to improve accessibility". The Electronic Library, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2007 . http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02640470710829541

Descriptores: Revistas electrónicas /Accesibilidad/Retroalimentación /Estudio de usuarios/Conducta

Resumen: The purpose of this research is to examine users preference and use of electronic journals in general, especially those published in a hosting system, Electronic Journal of the University of Malaya (EJUM) Design/methodology/approach - The study utilized the survey method and employed an online questionnaire as the data collection instrument. A list of 330 users who registered with EJUM was selected and an e-mail was sent to each with an invitation to complete the survey form linked to their mail. A total of 140 responses were returned, out of which 102 responses were usable. Findings - The electronic journals are used for searching new information, reading full-text articles, reading abstracts, and browsing the table of contents. Users are led to EJUM by chance while browsing the internet (41.8 per cent) when searching using Google, through citations obtained from conference papers, from articles or citations in databases. About 50 per cent of respondents rated the journals as "good" and 20.6 per cent rated "fair". Respondents prefer keywords (28.9 per cent) and title (24.3 per cent) searches. The majority of respondents (70 per cent) prefer articles in PDF. The majority of respondents read the abstracts first to determine relevance before downloading the articles. Respondents believe that electronic journals will either co-exist with print journals (46.2 per cent) or replace the print journals (25.5 per cent) or supplement (25.5 per cent) them. Users indicate the functions and features preferred in electronic journals. Practical implications/limitations - A HTML indexing page is created to automatically harvest the meta labels from the contents pages of journal issues, which is captured by Googlebot of Google Scholar. This strategy improves accessibility as Google Scholar provides citation and publication counts for articles and authors. A quality matrix for an electronic journal system is presented Originality/value - The study shows the extent to which e-journals are used in Malaysia and provides a matrix of usability features which potential electronic journal publishers could consider.

Julio Alonso Arévalo
Universidad de Salamanca.
Facultad de Traducción y Documentación
Dirección: Francisco Vitoria 6-16
37008 Salamanca
País: ES - España
Teléfono: +34-923 294 580
Fax: +34-923 294 582
Correo-e: alar@sal.es

Digitalia: http://sabus.usal.es/docu/
DoIS: http://wotan.liu.edu/dois/

---------------------------------------------
Los archivos de mensajes de INFODOC se pueden consultar
en la direccio http://listas.bcl.jcyl.es
---------------------------------------------