Google scholar bibliography

From HLWIKI Canada
Revision as of 09:18, 13 August 2017 by Dean (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Google Scholar debuted in late 2004
Are you interested in contributing to HLWIKI International? contact:

To browse other articles on a range of HSL topics, see the A-Z index.


Last Update

  • Updated.jpg 13 August 2017


See also Bibliographie Google Scholar | Microsoft Academic Search | Google scholar | Google scholar metrics | Scopus vs. Web of Science

This Google scholar bibliography lists ~187 articles, and aims to be an exhaustive list of articles published from 2004 to 2017 (not complete). Links to free fulltext or abstracts of articles are included where available. (The GS bibliography does not always include articles in foreign languages or in formats such as blog essays.) Note: articles added recently to this bibliography will show the new2.gif icon. For more information, see this entry on Google scholar.

Google scholar bibliography

A to J

  1. Abram S. Google Scholar: thin edge of the wedge? Info Outlook. 2005;9(1):44–46.
  2. Adlington J, Benda C. Checking under the hood: evaluating Google scholar for reference use. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2005;10(3/4):135-48.
  3. Adriaanse LS, Rensleigh C. Comparing Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar from an Environmental Sciences perspective. S Afr J Libr Inform Sci. 2011;77(2):169-178.
  4. Aguillo I. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2012;91(2):343-351.
  5. Ahmed KK. Assessing citations with Google Scholar: a new feature. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2012 Jan;3(1):75-6.
  6. Amara N. Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics. 2012.
  7. Anders ME, Evans DP. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respiratory Care. 2010;55(5):578-83.
  8. Anderson R. The (uncertain) future of libraries in a Google world: sounding an alarm. Internet Ref Serv Quar. 2006 10(3/4): 29-36.
  9. Asher AD. Paths of discovery: comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. Coll Res Libr. 15 April 2012.
  10. Badia G. Google Scholar out-performs many subscription databases when keyword searching. Evid Base Libr Info Practice. 2010;5(3):39-41.
  11. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries. 2006, 3:7.
  12. Banks MA. The excitement of Google Scholar, the worry of Google Print. Biomed Digit Libr. 2005;2(1):2.
  13. Bar-Ilan J. Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2010;82(3).
  14. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? a comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008;4(2):257-271.
  15. Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine. 2005(11):9
  16. Beckmann M, Wehrden H. Where you search is what you get: literature mining–Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science. J Vegetation Science. 2012;23:1197–1199.
  17. Beel J, Gpp B. Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar's resilience against it. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2010;13(3):1-25.
  18. Beavers AF. Searching for philosophy: a review of Google Scholar and Google News. Teaching Philosophy. 2005;28(4):367-371.
  19. Beel J, Gipp B. Academic Search Engine Spam and Google Scholar’s Resilience Against it. J Electr Publish. December 2010.
  20. Beel J, Gipp B. Google scholar's ranking algorithm: the impact of articles' age. International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. 2009;160-164.
  21. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Method. 2013;13(1):131.
  22. Bornmann L. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. J Informetrics. 2009;3(1):27-35
  23. Bosman J, Mourik I, van Rasch M, Sieverts E, Verhoeff H. Scopus reviewed and compared. The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Utrecht University Library. 2006
  24. Bowering LB, Hartman KA. Google Scholar and the library web site: the early response by ARL libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2006;67(2):106-122.
  25. new2.gifBramer WM. Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):143-5.
  26. new2.gif Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):1.
  27. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson P. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 23;2(1):115.
  28. Bronshteyn K, Tvaruzka K. Using Google Scholar at the reference desk. J Libr Admin. 2008;47(1):115–124.
  29. Burright M. Google Scholar: science & technology. Iss Sci Technol Librarian 2006 Winter.
  30. Bryson D. Google Scholar and e-journals. J Visual Commun Med. 2010;33(3):122-125.
  31. Callicott B, Vaughn D. Google Scholar vs. library scholar: testing the performance of Schoogle. Internet Ref Serv Quart 10(3-4): 71-88.
  32. Cathcart R, Roberts A. Evaluating Google scholar as a tool for information literacy. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2006;10(3/4):167-76.
  33. Chen X. Google scholar's dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review. 2010;36(4):221-226.
  34. Chen X. MetaLib, WebFeat and Google: the strengths and weaknesses of federated search engines compared with Google. Online Info Rev. 2006;20(4):413-27.
  35. Christianson M. Ecology articles in Google Scholar: levels of access to articles in core journals. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship. 2007;50:3
  36. Cohen LB. Finding scholarly content on the web: from Google Scholar to RSS feeds. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 42: 7-17.
  37. Cooke R, Don R. Thinking Inside the Box: Comparing Federated Search Results from Google Scholar, Live Search Academic, and central search. J Libr Admin. 46(3):31-42.
  38. Cothran T. Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: a quantitative study. Library & Information Science Research. 2011;33(4):293-301.
  39. Couto FM et al. Handling self-citations using Google Scholar. Cybermetrics. 2009:13(1).
  40. Delgado-López-Cózar E, Cabezas-Clavijo A. Ranking journals: could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?. Learned Publishing. 2013;26(2):101-113.
  41. Delgado-López-Cózar E, et al. Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting. arXiv, December 6th, 2012.
  42. Delgado-López-Cózar E, Cabezas-Clavijo A. Google scholar metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Profesional de la Informacion. 2012;21(4):419-17.
  43. De Groote SL. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nuring Outlook. June 2012.
  44. De Winter JCF, Zadpoor AA, Dodou D. The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics. August 2013.
  45. Di Cesare R, Luzi D, Ruggieri R. The impact of Grey Literature in the web environment: A citation analysis using Google Scholar. Int Conf Grey Lit. 2008:49-63.
  46. Dixon L. Finding articles and journals via Google Scholar, journal portals and link resolvers: usability study results. Ref User Serv Q. 2010;50(2):170-181.
  47. Donlan R, Cooke R. Running with the devil: accessing library-licensed full text holdings through Google Scholar. Int Ref Serv Q. 2006;10(3/4):149-57.
  48. Dougan K. Music to our eyes: Google Books, Google Scholar and the open content alliance. portal: Libraries & the Academy. 2010;10(1):75-93.
  49. Drewry J. Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic Search and Beyond: A Study of New Tools and Changing Habits in ARL Libraries. School of Information and Library Science 2007
  50. Ettinger D. The Triumph of Expediency: The Impact of Google Scholar on Library Instruction. Journal of Library Administration. 2008;46(3):65–72.
  51. Etxebarria G, Gomez-Uranga M. Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities. Scientometrics. 2010;82(2):333-349.
  52. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338-42.
  53. Felter LM. The better mousetrap: Google Scholar, Scirus, and the Scholarly Search Revolution. Searcher. 2005;13(2):43-8.
  54. Ford L, O'Hara LH. It's all academic: Google Scholar, Scirus and Windows Live Academic Search. J Library Administration. 2008;46(3/4):43-52.
  55. Franceschet M. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google scholar. Scientometrics. 2010;(3):243-258.
  56. Freeman MK etal. Google scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Ann Pharmacother. 2009
  57. Friend FJ. Google Scholar: potentially good for users of academic information. J Electronic Publishing. 2006;9(1).
  58. García-Pérez MA. Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: a case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology. J Amer Soc Info Sci Tech. 2010;61(10):2070–2085.
  59. Gardner S, Eng S. Gaga over Google? Scholar in the social sciences. Library Hi Tech News. 2005;22(8):42–5.
  60. Georgas H. Google vs. the library: student preferences and perceptions when doing research using Google and a federated search tool. portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2013;13(2):165-185.
  61. Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. OJPHI. 2013 July;5(2).
  62. Giustini D. Google scholar....and the rise of findability in (re)search. CACUL Teleconference. 2006.
  63. Giustini D, Barsky E. A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations. JCHLA / JABSC. 2005;26(3):85–9.
  64. Giustini D, Barsky E. Using Google Scholar in health research: comparisons with PubMed. CHLA/ABSC Conference, 2005.
  65. Golderman G, Connolly B. Between the book covers: going beyond OPAC keyword searching with the deep linking capabilities of Google Scholar and Google Book Search. J Internet Cat 2007;7(3/4):17-24.
  66. Gorman GE. Giving way to Google. Online Info Rev. 2006;30(2):97-9.
  67. Gray JE, Hamilton MC, Hauser A. Scholarish: Google Scholar and its value to the sciences. Iss Sci Tech Librarianship. 2012;70.
  68. Grogg JE, Ferguson CL. OpenURL linking with Google Scholar. Searcher. 2005;13(9):39-46.
  69. Haase A, Follmann M, Skipka G, Kirchner H. Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Jun 30;7:28.
  70. Haddaway NR, et al. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237.
  71. Halevi G, Moed H, Bar-Ilan J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics. 2017 Aug 31;11(3):823-34.
  72. Hamaker C, Spry B. Key issues – Google Scholar. Serials 2006: 9-11.
  73. Hartman KA, Mullen LB. Google Scholar and Academic Libraries: An Update. New Library World. 2008;109(5/6):211-222.
  74. Harzing A. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics. 2012:1-11.
  75. Harzing AWK, Wal van der R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008
  76. Haya G, Nygren E, Widmark W. Metalib and Google Scholar: a user study. Online Info Rev 2007;31(3):365-75.
  77. Helms-Park R, Radia P, Stapleton P. A preliminary assessment of Google Scholar as a source of EAP students’ research materials. Internet and Higher Education. 2007;10(1):65-76.
  78. Herrera, G. Google scholar users & user behaviors: an exploratory study. Coll Res Libr. 2010.
  79. Henderson J. Google Scholar: a source for clinicians? CMAJ. 2005;172(12):1549–50.
  80. Hightower C. Shifting sands: science researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Iss Sci Tech Librarianship. 2010;63:76-94.
  81. Hodge DR. Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: a new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. J Social Work Education. 2011;47(3).
  82. Hoseth A. Google Scholar. Charleston Advisor. 2011;12(3):36-39.
  83. Howland JL, Wright TC. Google Scholar and the Continuing Education Literature. J Contin High Educ. 2009;57:35-39.
  84. Howland JL, Wright TC, Boughan RA, Roberts BC. How scholarly is Google scholar? A comparison of Google scholar to library databases. Brigham Young University. June 2008.
  85. Jackson M. Using metadata to discover the buried treasure in Google Book Search. J Libr Admin. 2008;1(47):165–173.
  86. Jacso P. Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay's criticism. Scientometrics. 2012;92(2):325-354.
  87. Jacsó P. Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review. 2010;34(1):175-191.
  88. Jacsó P. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar for F. W. Lancaster. Online Information Review 2008;32(3):437-452.
  89. Jacsó P. Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Library Trends. 2008;56(4):784-815.
  90. Jacso P. Google scholar revisited. Online Info Rev. 2008;32(1):102-114
  91. Jacso, P. Google Scholar (Redux). Peter’s Digital Reference Shelf. 2005 June
  92. Jacsó P. Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Info Rev 2005;29(2):208–14.
  93. Jacsó P. As we may search: comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science. 2005;89(9):1537-47.
  94. Jacso P. Comparison and analysis of the citedness scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar. Lec Notes Comp Sci. 2005;3815:360-9.
  95. Jacso, P. Google Scholar and The Scientist (2005)
  96. Jacso P. Savvy searching - Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Info Rev. 2009;29(2):208-214.
  97. Jacso P. Google Scholar's Ghost Authors. Libr J. 2009;134(18):26-27.
  98. Jean-François G, Laetitia R, Stefan D. Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 9;13(1):7.

K to Z

  1. Kulkarni AV. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092-96.
  2. Kesselman M, Watsen SB. Google Scholar and libraries: point/counterpoint. Ref Serv Rev. 2005;33(4):380-7.
  3. Kirkwood HP, Kirkwood MC. EconLit and Google scholar go head-to-head. Online. 2011;35(2):38-41.
  4. Kloda LA. Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for comprehensive citation tracking. Evidence Based Lib Info Pract. 2007;2(3):87-90.
  5. Kousha K, Thelwall M, Rezaie S. Assessing the citation impact of books: the role of Google Books, Google Scholar and Scopus. J Am Soc Info Sci Tech. 2011;62(11):2147-64.
  6. Kousha K. Thelwall M. Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL Citations: A Multi-Discipline Exploratory Analysis. In: International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics. Nancy, France.
  7. Kousha K. Thelwall M. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: a comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics. 74(2):273–294.
  8. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009 Sep 9;302(10):1092-6.
  9. Lackie RJ. Google’s print and scholar initiatives: the value of and impact on libraries and information services. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2006;10(3/4):57-70.
  10. Lagace N, Chisman JK. How did we ever manage without the OpenURL? Ser Libr. 2007;52(1-2):211-22.
  11. Lê Mê-Linh. Google scholar: an outcast in the library world. CASLIS Occasional Paper. 2008:39-44.
  12. Levay P, Ainsworth N, Kettle R, Morgan A. Identifying evidence for publichealth guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science andGoogle Scholar. Res Synth Methods. 2016 Mar;7(1):34-45.
  13. Levine-Clark M, Kraus J. Finding chemistry information using Google Scholar: a comparison with chemical abstracts service. Sci Tech Libr. 2007;27(4):3-17.
  14. Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM. Citation analysis: comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder® and Google Scholar. J Elec Res Med Libr. 2010;7(3):196-217.
  15. Ma R. An author co-citation analysis of information science in China with Chinese Google Scholar search engine, 2004–2006. Scientometrics. 2009;81(1):33-46.
  16. Martin-Martin A, Orduna-Malea E, Harzing AW, López-Cózar ED. Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics. 2017 Feb 28;11(1):152-63.
  17. Martín-Martín A, Orduña-Malea E, Ayllon JM, López-Cózar ED. The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.02412. 2016 Feb 7.
  18. Mastrangelo G. Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources. BMC Research Notes. 2010;3:131-134.
  19. Matthew EF, Eleni IP, George AM, Georgios P. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338-42.
  20. Mayr P, Walter A. An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Info Rev. 2007;31:814-30.
  21. Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. 2007
  22. Meier JJ, Conklin TW. Google Scholar’s coverage of the engineering literature: an empirical study. J Acad Librarianship. 2008.
  23. Mikki S. Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics. 2010;82(2).
  24. Miller W, Pellen R. Google Scholar and more: new Google applications and tools for libraries and library users. Library Hi Tech. 2010;28(2):333-334
  25. Minders J. Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics. 2010;85(2):613-25.
  26. Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics. 2017 May 22:1-1.
  27. Moskovkin WM. The potential of using the Google Scholar search engine for estimating the publication activities of universities. Sci Tech Info Process. 2009;36(4):198–202.
  28. Moussa S, Touzani M. Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based HG-index. J Informetrics. 2010;4(1):107-17.
  29. Mukherjee B. Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? A bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. 2009;3(60):581-594.
  30. Mullen LB, Hartman KA. Google Scholar and the library Web site: the early response by ARL libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2006;67(2):106–22.
  31. Myhill M. Google Scholar - a review. Charleston Advisor. 2005;6(4): n.p.
  32. Neuhaus E, Asher A. The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: an empirical study. Libraries and the Academy. 2006;(2):127–41.
  33. Neuhaus C, Neuhaus E, Asher A. Google scholar goes to school: the presence of Google scholar on college and university web Sites. 2008;34(1):39-51
  34. Neville K. Google scholar and more: new Google applications and tools for libraries and library users. Library Hi Tech. 2010;28(2):333-4.
  35. Noll HM. Where Google stands on art: an evaluation of content coverage in online databases. A Master’s Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree. 2008.
  36. Norberg L. Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic Search and beyond: a study of new tools and changing habits in ARL Libraries
  37. Norris BP. Google: its impact on the library. Library Hi Tech News. 2006;23(9):9-11.
  38. Norris M. Finding open access articles using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR. Online Info Rev. 2008;32(6):709-715.
  39. Norris M, Oppenheim, C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. J Informetrics. 2007;1(2):161-9.
  40. Noruzi A. Google Scholar: the new generation of citation indexes. Libri. 2007;55(4):170-80.
  41. Notess GR. Scholarly Web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online. 2005;29(4):39–41.
  42. Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Info Libr J. 2012;29:214–222.
  43. Nygren E Haya G, Widmark, W. Students experience of Metalib and Google Scholar. Stockholm University, University Library. 2006
  44. O’Hara LH. Providing access to electronic journals in academic libraries: a general survey Serials Librarian. 2007 51(3/4): 119-28.
  45. Orduña-Malea E, et al. Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2015;104(3):931-949.
  46. Orduña-Malea E, López-Cózar ED. The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories. Scientometrics. 2015;102(1):829-846.
  47. O’Leary M. Google Scholar: what’s in it for you? Info Today. 2005;22(7):35-9.
  48. Ortega JL. How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics. 2015 Jul 1;104(1):1-8.
  49. Ortega JL, Aguillo IF. Science is all in the eye of the beholder: keyword maps in Google scholar citations. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2012;63:2370–2377.
  50. Pauly D, Stergiou KI. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar service. ESEP 2005:33–35.
  51. Pomerantz J. Google Scholar and 100% availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries 2006 Oct 19;25(1):52-6.
  52. Potter C. Standing on the shoulders of libraries: a holistic and rhetorical approach to teaching Google Scholar. J Library Administration. 2008;47(1):5–28.
  53. Price G. Google Scholar is now open to all libraries. Search Engine Journal. 2005
  54. new2.gifPrins AD, et al. Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: a comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation. 2016:rvv049.
  55. Rahm E, Thor A. Citation analysis of database publications. ACM Sigmod Record. 2005;34(4).
  56. Ripple AS. Expert googling: best practices and advanced strategies for using google in health sciences libraries. Med Ref Serv Q. 2006;25(2):97-107.
  57. Robinson ML, Wusteman J. Putting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study. Program. 2007;41(1):71-80.
  58. Sadeh T. Google Scholar versus metasearch systems. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine. 2006;12.
  59. Sanni SA. Evaluating the influence of a medical journal using Google Scholar. Learned Publishing. 2011;24(2):145-154.
  60. Schmidt J. Promoting library services in a Google world. Library World. 2007;28:337-46.
  61. Schroeder R. Pointing users toward citation searching: using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Libraries and the Academy. 2007;7(2):243-8.
  62. Schultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Lib Assoc. 2007;95(4):442-5.
  63. Serenko A, Dumay J. Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2015 Oct 12;19(6):1335-55.
  64. Shapiro S. Google Scholar: the 800 pound gorilla in the room. J Electr Res Librarianship. 2012;24(2):156-157.
  65. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SAD, Sontrop JM, Iansavichus AV, Haynes RB, Weir MA, Garg AX. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e164.
  66. Sittig DF, McCoy AB, Wright A, Lin J. Developing an Open-Source BibliometricRanking Website Using Google Scholar Citation Profiles for Researchers in theField of Biomedical Informatics. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:1004.
  67. Smith AG. Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics. 2008(74)2:309-316.
  68. Smith AG. Google Scholar as a cybermetric tool: a comparison with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment. International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leuven, Belgium, 2006.
  69. Strachan G. Google Scholar and Google Print: the brave new world? Editors' Bulletin. 2006;2(2):27-33.
  70. Taylor S. Google scholar – friend or foe? Interlend Doc Supply. 2007;35(1):4-6.
  71. Tenopir C. Google in the academic library: undergraduates may find all they want on Google Scholar. Library Journal. 2005:32.
  72. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? Scientometrics. 2017 Jul 1:1-7.
  73. Thelwall, M. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):273-294.
  74. Thor A. The calculation of the single publication h index and related performance measures: A web application based on Google Scholar data. Online Information Review. 2011;35(2):291-300.
  75. Thulesius H. Assessing research impact with Google Scholar: the most cited articles in the journal 2008-2010. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011 Dec;29(4):193-5.
  76. Tober M. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar: which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Medical Laser Application. 2011;26(3):139-144.
  77. van Aalst J. Using Google Scholar to estimate the impact of journal articles in education. Educational Researcher. 2010;39:387-400.
  78. Vilelle L. Join the conversation: show your library's Google Scholar and Book Search expertise. J Library Administration. 2008;46(3):53–64.
  79. Vine R. Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(1):97–9.
  80. Walters WH. Comparative recall and precision of simple and expert searches in Google Scholar and eight other databases. Portal: Libraries & The Academy. 2011;11(4):971-1006.
  81. Walters WH. Google scholar search performance: comparative recall and precision. portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2009;(9)1:5-24.
  82. Walters WH. Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Info Processing Man. 2007 43(4): 1121-32.
  83. Wang Y, Howard P. Google Scholar usage: an academic library’s experience. J Web Librarianship. 2012;6(2).
  84. White B. Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source. New Zealand Libr Info Management J. 2006;50:1-24.
  85. Winter JC, Zadpoor AA, Dodou D. The expansion of Google scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics. 2014;98(2):1547-156.
  86. Wleklinski JM. Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage? Info Today. 29(3):22-6.
  87. Yang K, Meho LI. Citation analysis: a comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST). 2006
  88. York MC. Calling the scholars home: Google Scholar as a tool for rediscovering the academic library Internet. Ref Serv Quart. 2007;10(3/4):117-33.
  89. Younger P. Using Google Scholar to conduct a literature search. Nursing Standard. 2010;24(45):40-48.
Personal tools