Suchergebnisse

Why? Google Scholar Author Profile? Many people search Google Scholar because it's easy. Google Scholar indexes "scholarly materials" – it includes a very large number of scholarly databases, but not commercial websites, and not law reports. Google Scholar also indexes books and book chapters. This is good for humanities and social science academics (though not perfect). You can manually add publications that aren't already in Google Scholar. You can export your Google Scholar citations to a spreadsheet, and then add in citations in judgments or government reports etc. to make a more complete record of your citations and impact. Why should Scholars use LinkedIn?Showcase your work - online portfolioMake and maintain connectionsExpand your professional networkGet endorsements and recommendationsGet noticed and contacted by recruitersJob hunting and application made efficient

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the new scientific search service Google Scholar (GS). It aims to discuss this search engine, which is intended exclusively for searching scholarly documents, and then empirically test its most important functionality. The focus is on an exploratory study which investigates the coverage of scientific serials in GS. The study is based on queries against different journal lists: international scientific journals from Thomson Scientific (SCI, SSCI, AH), open access journals from
the DOAJ list and journals from the German social sciences literature database SOLIS as well as the analysis of result data from GS. All data gathering took place in August 2006. The study shows deficiencies in the coverage and up-to-dateness of the GS index. Furthermore, the study points out which web servers are the most important data providers for this search service and which information sources are highly represented. The paper can show that there is a relatively large gap in Google Scholar's coverage of German literature as well as weaknesses in the accessibility of Open Access content. Major commercial academic publishers are currently the main data providers. (author's abstract)

Why? Google Scholar Author Profile? Many people search Google Scholar because it's easy. Google Scholar indexes "scholarly materials" – it includes a very large number of scholarly databases, but not commercial websites, and not law reports. Google Scholar also indexes books and book chapters. This is good for humanities and social science academics (though not perfect).You can manually add publications that aren't already in Google Scholar.You can export your Google Scholar citations to a spreadsheet, and then add in citations in judgments or government reports etc. to make a more complete record of your citations and impact.

ABSTRACTThis article uses data collected from Google Scholar to identify characteristics of scholars who have chosen to create a Google Scholar profile. Among tenured and tenure-track faculty with full-time appointments in PhD-granting political science departments, we find that only 43.7% have created a profile. However, among R1 faculty, young and early-career faculty are more likely to have Google Scholar profiles than those in older cohorts. Although subfield differences are largely nonexistent, there is a notably low proportion of theory faculty with profiles and a slightly higher proportion with profiles among methodologists. Moreover, within cohorts, those who are highly cited are more likely to have profiles than those who have low citation counts. We conclude by discussing implications of our findings, the increasing usage of Google Scholar and profiles, and the increasing importance of an online presence in the academy.

ABSTRACTGoogle Scholar (GS) is an important tool that faculty, administrators, and external reviewers use to evaluate the scholarly impact of candidates for jobs, tenure, and promotion. This article highlights both the benefits of GS—including the reliability and consistency of its citation counts and its platform for disseminating scholarship and facilitating networking—and its pitfalls. GS has biases because citation is a social and political process that disadvantages certain groups, including women, younger scholars, scholars in smaller research communities, and scholars opting for risky and innovative work. GS counts also reflect practices of strategic citation that exacerbate existing hierarchies and inequalities. As a result, it is imperative that political scientists incorporate other data sources, especially independent scholarly judgment, when making decisions that are crucial for careers. External reviewers have a unique obligation to offer a reasoned, rigorous, and qualitative assessment of a scholar's contributions and therefore should not use GS.

Nowadays, three most popular citation databases are Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). In contrast to WoS and Scopus, GS is freely accessible. Comparing the three citation databases, WoS and Scopus have precisely defined and published criteria for selection of sources and papers from these sources. Google's policy is quite non-transparent. In recent times, however, scientists have been increasingly citing data from GS in addition to data on presence and citations in databases WoS and Scopus. In the conclusion of a comparative analysis of number of citations of papers published in the Croatian Medical Journal in 2005 and 2006 according to the three citation databases, it is emphasized that GS may serve as an alternative bibliometric measure of citation frequency (Šember et al. 2010). An investigation of the number of citations for scientists from the fields of library and information sciences for the period 1996–2005, according to the three mentioned citation databases, has shown, among other things, that citations collected by GS are very useful. They are not of the same quality and significance as those from WoS and Scopus, but they point at a broader international echo of the cited papers than results obtained using WoS and Scopus (Meho, Yang 2007). ; Tri su najpopularnije citatne baze podataka danas Web of Science (WoS), Scopus i Google Scholar (GS). GS je za razliku od WoS-a i Scopusa slobodno dostupan. Uspoređujući te tri citatne baze podataka treba reći da WoS i Scopus imaju precizne i objavljene kriterije odabira izvora i radova iz tih izvora, a Googleova politika odabira prilično je netransparentna. Međutim, u posljednje doba znanstvenici sve češće uz podatke o zastupljenosti i citiranosti, npr. pojedinih časopisa, u bazama podataka WoS i Scopus navode podatke i za GS. U zaključku usporedne analize citiranosti članaka objavljenih 2005. i 2006. u časopisu Croatian Medical Journal prema tri navedene citatne baze ističe se da GS može služiti kao alternativni bibliometrijski alat za orijentacijski uvid u citiranost (Šember i dr. 2010). Istraživanje citiranosti znanstvenika iz područja knjižničarske i informacijske znanosti prema tri navedene citatne baze podataka za razdoblje 1996–2005. pokazalo je, između ostaloga, da iako citati koje prikuplja GS nisu iste kvalitete i težine kao oni u WoS-u i Scopusu, vrlo su korisni jer pokazuju širi međunarodni odjek citiranih radova od onog koji se dobiva preko WoS-a i Scopusa (Meho, Yang 2007).

Version 1.0, Published on 11 February 2017, Granada ; This work has been rejected in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA), both the full version (24th December, 2016) and a letter to editor version (31st January, 2017). ; Recently, a review concluded that Google Scholar (GS) is not a suitable source of information "for identifying recent conference papers or other gray literature publications". The goal of this letter is to demonstrate that GS can be an effective tool to search and find gray literature, as long as appropriate search strategies are used. To do this, we took as examples the same two case studies used by the original review, describing first how GS processes original's search strategies, then proposing alternative search strategies, and finally generalizing each case study to compose a general search procedure aimed at finding gray literature in Google Scholar for two wide selected case studies: a) all contributions belonging to a congress (the ASCO Annual Meeting); and b) indexed guidelines as well as gray literature within medical institutions (National Institutes of Health) and governmental agencies (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services). The results confirm that original search strategies were undertrained offering misleading results and erroneous conclusions. Google Scholar lacks many of the advanced search features available in other bibliographic databases (such as Pubmed), however, it is one thing to have a friendly search experience, and quite another to find gray literature. We finally conclude that Google Scholar is a powerful tool for searching gray literature, as long as the users are familiar with all the possibilities it offers as a search engine. Poorly formulated searches will undoubtedly return misleading results.

H-index has been widely used as a performance indicator of researchers around the world especially in Indonesia. The Government uses Scopus and Google scholar as indexing references in providing recognition and appreciation. However, those two indexing services yield to different H-index values. For that purpose, this paper evaluates the difference of the H-index from those services. Researchers indexed by Webometrics, are used as reference's data in this paper. Currently, Webometrics only uses H-index from Google Scholar. This paper observed and compared corresponding researchers' data from Scopus to get their H-index score. Subsequently, some researchers with huge differences in score are observed in more detail on their paper's publisher. This paper shows that the H-index of researchers in Google Scholar is approximately 2.45 times of their Scopus H-Index. Most difference exists due to the existence of uncertified publishers, which is considered in Google Scholar but not in Scopus.

ABSTRACTThis article develops a number of measures of the research productivity of political science departments using data collected from Google Scholar. Departments are ranked in terms of citations to articles published by faculty, citations to articles recently published by faculty, impact factors of journals in which faculty published, and number of top publications in which faculty published. Results are presented in aggregate terms and on a per-faculty basis.

The Romanian university system includes periodical or conjunctural evaluations. In most cases, the tools are given by the unanimously recognized bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) or by the debatable ones (Google Scholar). The latter, which is also the most accessed in such cases, represents the subject of an analysis in which not only the information selection criteria are challenged, but also the means of calculating the h-index. As a case study, the author analyses his own scientific works, thus revealing great discrepancies between the numbers obtained through the services provided by Google Scholar and the real numbers that exceed the former by more than half. This fact indicates an obvious disadvantage for a scholar who is evaluated through the aforementioned tools in which the analysis of the citations plays a key role. Moreover, the present paper shall also discuss other minuses of the higher education system in which certain individuals' or certain institutions' hunt for academic visibility has generated a series of chicaneries. The most often used are those that seek interdisciplinary collectives, in which one's professional participation is minimal, but the professional prestige is maximal.