Search (3183 results, page 1 of 160)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.17 
    0.16794439 = product of:
  0.33588877 = sum of:
    0.33588877 = sum of:
      0.28852183 = weight(_text_:scholar in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28852183 = score(doc=40,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.87969065 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047366958 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
    Object
    Google Scholar
    Semantic Scholar
  2. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.16 
    0.16168231 = product of:
  0.32336462 = sum of:
    0.32336462 = sum of:
      0.26923093 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26923093 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.82087356 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.05413367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05413367 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Object
    Google Scholar
  3. Golderman, G.M.; Connolly, B.: Between the book covers : going beyond OPAC keyword searching with the deep linking capabilities of Google Scholar and Google Book Search (2004/05) 0.15 
    0.14994535 = product of:
  0.2998907 = sum of:
    0.2998907 = sum of:
      0.26605716 = weight(_text_:scholar in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26605716 = score(doc=731,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.8111969 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033833545 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.
    Date
    2.12.2007 19:39:22
    Object
    Google Scholar
  4. Gu, X.; Blackmore, K.L.: Developing a scholar classification scheme from publication patterns in academic science : a cluster analysis approach (2019) 0.14 
    0.1429083 = product of:
  0.2858166 = sum of:
    0.2858166 = sum of:
      0.23796876 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23796876 = score(doc=5420,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.72555655 = fieldWeight in 5420, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5420)
      0.047847856 = weight(_text_:22 in 5420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047847856 = score(doc=5420,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 5420, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5420)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The impact of university rankings has driven scholars to increase productivity, and expanding collaboration has dramatically changed the publishing patterns in the academic publication system. The aim of this study was to develop a scholar classification scheme from publication patterns in academic science. Classification schemes are ways of describing groups that display different clusters of behaviors, approaches, or perspectives, and useful in the development of typologies. In this research, sample data are selected from three representative universities, considered a leading university, a middle-tier university, and a noncomprehensive university. A final set of 11,427 effective scholars and their 284,128 journal publication records were used to develop the classification scheme via cluster analysis. The results identify six types of scholars, labeled as: singleton (8%), small-team low performer (16%), small-team high performer (17%), big-team strategist (22%), free-style follower (21%), and life-time warrior (17%). These six scholar types demonstrate different approaches to publishing that can be used to understand both individual and research team performance across different institutional settings. Additionally, possible future work was identified that uses the scholar classification scheme to define the behavior for agents in an agent-based model to simulate the strategic-behavior-driven academic publication system.
    Date
    8.10.2019 19:18:22
  5. Arendt, J.: Imperfect tools : Google Scholar vs. traditional commercial library databases (2008) 0.12 
    0.12365221 = product of:
  0.24730442 = sum of:
    0.24730442 = product of:
      0.49460885 = sum of:
        0.49460885 = weight(_text_:scholar in 6802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.49460885 = score(doc=6802,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.5080411 = fieldWeight in 6802, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Should Google Scholar replace subscription databases?
    Object
    Google Scholar
  6. Noruzi, A.: Google Scholar : the new generation of citation indexes (2005) 0.11 
    0.10708594 = product of:
  0.21417189 = sum of:
    0.21417189 = product of:
      0.42834377 = sum of:
        0.42834377 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42834377 = score(doc=5061,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.3060018 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  7. Nistico, R.: Studio e indicizzazione delle dediche librarie (1998) 0.11 
    0.106972545 = product of:
  0.21394509 = sum of:
    0.21394509 = sum of:
      0.16657813 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16657813 = score(doc=2823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.50788957 = fieldWeight in 2823, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2823)
      0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 2823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047366958 = score(doc=2823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2823, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2823)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Book dedications by authors, often in verse form and appearing just before the title page, are one of the 6 elements describes by the French scholar Genette as paratextual. For some reasons dedications have failed to interest librarians, yet books containing them can be a valid object of bibliographic study, for the reasons that they carry special markings: are an example of a specific literary or semantic class; and reveal linguistic/stylistic features. Examines the history of literary dedications, citing examples by well-known writers, and suggests that cataloguing software should have a special field to record dedication
    Date
    22. 2.1999 20:41:06
  8. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.11 
    0.106972545 = product of:
  0.21394509 = sum of:
    0.21394509 = sum of:
      0.16657813 = weight(_text_:scholar in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16657813 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.50788957 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047366958 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  9. Lewandowski, D.: Nachweis deutschsprachiger bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlicher Aufsätze in Google Scholar (2007) 0.10 
    0.10200785 = product of:
  0.2040157 = sum of:
    0.2040157 = product of:
      0.4080314 = sum of:
        0.4080314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4080314 = score(doc=284,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2440703 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In dieser Untersuchung werden die Aufsätze der Jahre 2004 bis 2006 aus den acht wichtigsten deutschsprachigen Zeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens auf ihre Verfügbarkeit in Google Scholar hin untersucht. Dabei zeigt sich, dass Google Scholar keinen vollständigen Nachweis der Artikel bieten kann und sich daher nicht als Ersatz für bibliographische Datenbanken eignet. Google Scholar macht einen Teil der Volltexte direkt verfügbar und eignet sich insofern für einen schnellen und problemlosen Zugang zum Volltext, der traditionelle Wege wie die Bibliothek bzw. die Fernleihe umgeht. Für das Fach Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft bietet Google Scholar insgesamt die Chance, seine Inhalte auch über die Fachgrenzen hinaus bekannt zu machen.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  10. Callicott, B.; Vaughn, D.: Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar : testing the performance of Schoogle (2005) 0.10 
    0.10200785 = product of:
  0.2040157 = sum of:
    0.2040157 = product of:
      0.4080314 = sum of:
        0.4080314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4080314 = score(doc=357,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2440703 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    How does the content of Google Scholar, a.k.a. "Schoogle, compare to that of subscription databases and the library catalog? Five sample research topics indigenous to undergraduate libraries were searched in Google Scholar, the College of Charleston online catalog, EBSCO's Academic Search Premier database, and a subject-specific subscription database. Points of consideration included document type, availability of full-text materials, local availability of materials (either in print or online), and relevance of materials to the research topics. Results showed that Google Scholar, while a substantive supplementary research tool, does not provide the same quality in terms of relevance for many research topics.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  11. Donlan, R.; Cooke, R.: Running with the devil : accessing library-licensed full text holdings through Google Scholar (2005) 0.10 
    0.10200785 = product of:
  0.2040157 = sum of:
    0.2040157 = product of:
      0.4080314 = sum of:
        0.4080314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4080314 = score(doc=363,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2440703 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Linking full-text proprietary databases with Google Scholar revealed three significant limitations in terms of precision (no subject heading search), transparency (no listing of information sources), and visibility (Google Scholar details are hard to find). Google Scholar is not a "one stop shopping" search engine that retrieves all relevant data from a library's licensed content. Despite these shortcomings, Google Scholar is a worthwhile search option for students, which may steer them away from Web resources, and towards the library's catalog and databases.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  12. 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 (2009) 0.10 
    0.101051435 = product of:
  0.20210287 = sum of:
    0.20210287 = sum of:
      0.16826932 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16826932 = score(doc=2745,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.51304597 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033833545 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
    Object
    Google Scholar
  13. Bosman, J.; Sieverts, E.: Wetenschappelijk googlelen eenvoudiger en beter dan ooit? (2005) 0.10 
    0.1009616 = product of:
  0.2019232 = sum of:
    0.2019232 = product of:
      0.4038464 = sum of:
        0.4038464 = weight(_text_:scholar in 7091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4038464 = score(doc=7091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2313104 = fieldWeight in 7091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Scientific googling, simpler and better than ever?: Google Scholar
    Object
    Google Scholar
  14. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.10 
    0.09962428 = sum of:
  0.079324156 = product of:
    0.23797245 = sum of:
      0.23797245 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23797245 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020300126 = product of:
    0.04060025 = sum of:
      0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04060025 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  15. ExLibris: OpenURL links to SFX in Google Scholar (2005) 0.10 
    0.09865664 = product of:
  0.19731328 = sum of:
    0.19731328 = product of:
      0.39462656 = sum of:
        0.39462656 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39462656 = score(doc=3994,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2031995 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Ex Libris announced the immediate availability of a new set of tools to enable Google(TM) Scholar to display OpenURL links to SFX®. With these tools, institutions with the award-winning SFX link server can register with Google Scholar to have their SFX links displayed in Google Scholar search results. Once registered, the institutions' electronic library holdings are made available to Google Scholar so that the Google Scholar search results will clearly indicate when electronic full text is available. The new SFX tools result from recent work undertaken by Ex Libris in collaboration with both Google and a number of SFX customers who participated in the Google Scholar OpenURL pilot project. By tying local content into Google Scholar, the new tools address research needs expressed by many SFX customers. For libraries that do not yet enjoy the benefits of a link server, Ex Libris is pleased to announce ScholarSFX(TM). This groundbreaking service enables libraries - for free - to create customized links based an their institution's electronic journal holdings and display these links in Google Scholar search results. Patrons affiliated with the institution will then be able to link from the Google Scholar results to articles that are available through local institutional subscriptions or for free an the Web. ScholarSFX includes links to thousands of such free journals. - For additional information an SFX for Google Scholar and ScholarSFX, please visit: www.exlibrisgroup.com/scholar_sfx.htm"
  16. Wilson, F.G.: ¬The library catalog and the scholar (1942) 0.10 
    0.0951875 = product of:
  0.190375 = sum of:
    0.190375 = product of:
      0.38075 = sum of:
        0.38075 = weight(_text_:scholar in 6201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38075 = score(doc=6201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1608905 = fieldWeight in 6201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Dunkin, P.S.: Classification and the scholar (1942) 0.10 
    0.0951875 = product of:
  0.190375 = sum of:
    0.190375 = product of:
      0.38075 = sum of:
        0.38075 = weight(_text_:scholar in 6205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38075 = score(doc=6205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1608905 = fieldWeight in 6205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Cathcart, R.; Roberts, A.: Evaluating Google Scholar as a tool for information literacy (2005) 0.10 
    0.0951875 = product of:
  0.190375 = sum of:
    0.190375 = product of:
      0.38075 = sum of:
        0.38075 = weight(_text_:scholar in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38075 = score(doc=365,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1608905 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There are a growing number of articles on the juncture of Google Scholar and libraries; this article seeks to address the ability of this resource to meet the information needs of students and researchers using the ACRL Information Literacy Standards. Each standard is applied to Google Scholar in this examination, and recommendations for how librarians might respond are offered.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  19. Harzing, A.-W.; Wal, R. van der: ¬A Google Scholar h-index for journals : an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business (2009) 0.10 
    0.0951875 = product of:
  0.190375 = sum of:
    0.190375 = product of:
      0.38075 = sum of:
        0.38075 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38075 = score(doc=2630,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1608905 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We propose a new data source (Google Scholar) and metric (Hirsch's h-index) to assess journal impact in the field of economics and business. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in economics and business shows that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  20. Beck, C.: Primo gegen Google Scholar : benutzerfreundliches Discovery 10 Jahre später (2018) 0.10 
    0.0951875 = product of:
  0.190375 = sum of:
    0.190375 = product of:
      0.38075 = sum of:
        0.38075 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38075 = score(doc=5196,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1608905 = fieldWeight in 5196, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken stehen seit zehn Jahren vor der Frage, ob sie für die Vermittlung ihrer Bestände Discovery-Systeme oder Internet-Suchmaschinen wie Google Scholar einsetzen sollen. Ein Vergleich des Discovery-Systems Primo des Anbieters Ex Libris mit Google Scholar zeigt, dass Primo eine bessere Usability bietet, indem es summa summarum einfacher zu bedienen ist sowie relevantere und vielfältigere Treffer liefert.
    Object
    Google Scholar

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • el 74
  • b 34
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes