Search (3799 results, page 2 of 190)

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

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

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

0.09312001 = product of:
  0.18624002 = sum of:
    0.18624002 = product of:
      0.37248003 = sum of:
        0.37248003 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37248003 = score(doc=3626,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1356757 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit dem Start von Google Scholar als einem neuartigen Suchdienst für wissenschaftliche Literatur (in der englischen Version im November 2004 und in der deutschen Version im April 2006), sorgt dieser Dienst für Gesprächsstoff unter Fachleuten. In diesem Beitrag wird nicht untersucht, wie vollständig Zeitschriftenlisten von Fachdatenbanken oder Verlagen und die Indexierung von Open Access Hochschulschriftenservern durch Google Scholar abgedeckt werden und auch das Pageranking und die Indexierungshäufigkeit von Google Scholar stehen nicht im Fokus, sondern es geht um die praktische Anwendung dieses Suchdienstes bei wissenschaftlichen Literaturrecherchen. Wie müssen Suchanfragen formuliert werden, um thematisch passende Ergebnisse zu bekommen und wie viele relevante Ergebnisse gibt es innerhalb dieser Treffermengen.

Object

Google Scholar

0.09169075 = product of:
  0.1833815 = sum of:
    0.1833815 = sum of:
      0.14278124 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14278124 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.4353339 = fieldWeight in 2680, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2680)
      0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04060025 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This study provides evidence on the actual information-seeking behaviour of students in a digital scholarly environment, not what they thought they did. It also compares student information-seeking behaviour with that of other academic communities, and, in some cases, for practitioners. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered as part of CIBER's ongoing Virtual Scholar programme. In particular log data from two digital journals libraries, Blackwell Synergy and OhioLINK, and one e-book collection (Oxford Scholarship Online) are utilized. Findings - The study showed a distinctive form of information-seeking behaviour associated with students and differences between them and other members of the academic community. For example, students constituted the biggest users in terms of sessions and pages viewed, and they were more likely to undertake longer online sessions. Undergraduates and postgraduates were the most likely users of library links to access scholarly databases, suggesting an important "hot link" role for libraries. Originality/value - Few studies have focused on the actual (rather than perceived) information-seeking behaviour of students. The study fills that gap.

Date

23. 2.2009 17:22:41

0.089238286 = product of:
  0.17847657 = sum of:
    0.17847657 = product of:
      0.35695314 = sum of:
        0.35695314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 4381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35695314 = score(doc=4381,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0883348 = fieldWeight in 4381, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Am 18. November 2004 ist die Beta-Version eines neuen Suchdienstes von Google in Betrieb gegangen: Google Scholar (http/scholar.google.com/), das in Zusammenarbeit mit zahlreichen Fachverlagen entstand, soll Studenten und Wissenschaftlern als erste Anlaufstelle bei der Suche nach akademischen Quellen dienen, heißt es bei den Betreibern. Google Scholar erfasst Bücher, wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, technische Dokumente, Fachzeitschriften und sonstige Literatur, darunter auch Quellen, die via Open Access frei verfügbar sind, zusammen ca. 1,630.000 Dokumente (im Vergleich dazu verzeichnet das Web of Knowledge ca. 18,500.000 und Scopus 26,733,641 Dokumente). Neben Links zu weiterführenden Bibliotheks-Recherchen bieten die Ergebnislisten auch einen Überblick darüber, wie oft das gefundene Dokument in anderen Publikationen zitiert wurde. Die Trefferliste ist nach absteigender Zitierhäufigkeit gereiht; die Treffer werden zusätzlich aufgewertet, wenn sie ihrerseits von vielzitierten Artikeln zitiert werden. Google Scholar kommt vorerst noch ohne Werbung aus, Branchenkenner rechnen aber damit, dass sich die Sparten-Suchmaschine schon bald zu einer profitablen Angelegenheit für die Betreiber entwickeln wird. "Wirtschaftlich zielt der Dienst darauf ab, akademische Inhalte mit Werbung für hochwertige Produkte und Dienstleistungen zu verknüpfen -- und ich glaube das Konzept geht auf", meint John Sack von der Stanford University. Mark Chillingworth meint sogar: "Google Scholar looks like being a bigger headache to AM services like ISI Web of Knowledge and the newly launched Scopus from Elsevier." [!] Die weitere Entwicklung wird zeigen, ob diese Vermutung berechtigt ist. Am 8. Dezember hat die American Chemical Society Klage gegen Google Scholar wegen der Namensähnlichkeit mit dem SciFinder Scholar eingereicht. Google-Sprecher Steve Langdon wollte sich zu dem Sachverhalt nicht im Detail äußern, sagte lediglich, dass sein Unternehmen von der Nutzung des Begriffs Scholar überzeugt ist und die Klage der ACS gegenstandslos ist."

Object

Google Scholar

0.089238286 = product of:
  0.17847657 = sum of:
    0.17847657 = product of:
      0.35695314 = sum of:
        0.35695314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35695314 = score(doc=337,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0883348 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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.

Object

Google Scholar

0.0874353 = product of:
  0.1748706 = sum of:
    0.1748706 = product of:
      0.3497412 = sum of:
        0.3497412 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3497412 = score(doc=5131,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0663459 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.

Object

Google Scholar

0.08413466 = product of:
  0.16826932 = sum of:
    0.16826932 = product of:
      0.33653864 = sum of:
        0.33653864 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33653864 = score(doc=1213,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0260919 = fieldWeight in 1213, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar has been well received by the research community. Its promises of free, universal, and easy access to scientific literature coupled with the perception that it covers the social sciences and the humanities better than other traditional multidisciplinary databases have contributed to the quick expansion of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: 2 new bibliometric products that offer citation data at the individual level and at journal level. In this article, we show the results of an experiment undertaken to analyze Google Scholar's capacity to detect citation-counting manipulation. For this, we uploaded 6 documents to an institutional web domain that were authored by a fictitious researcher and referenced all the publications of the members of the EC3 research group at the University of Granada. The detection by Google Scholar of these papers caused an outburst in the number of citations included in the Google Scholar Citations profiles of the authors. We discuss the effects of such an outburst and how it could affect the future development of such products, at both the individual level and the journal level, especially if Google Scholar persists with its lack of transparency.

Object

Google scholar

0.083289064 = product of:
  0.16657813 = sum of:
    0.16657813 = product of:
      0.33315626 = sum of:
        0.33315626 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33315626 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0157791 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Google scholar

0.083289064 = product of:
  0.16657813 = sum of:
    0.16657813 = product of:
      0.33315626 = sum of:
        0.33315626 = weight(_text_:scholar in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33315626 = score(doc=361,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0157791 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library guides to Google Scholar reveal the concerns and fears of librarians as they watch their users slip further and further outside of their domain of influence. Comparing these fears against data from recent surveys and studies of students and faculty suggests that a profound change in the role of the library in relation to how users search for and discover information has been underway for some time, and that Google Scholar is only the most recent and visible manifestation of that revolution.

Object

Google Scholar

0.083289064 = product of:
  0.16657813 = sum of:
    0.16657813 = product of:
      0.33315626 = sum of:
        0.33315626 = weight(_text_:scholar in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33315626 = score(doc=855,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0157791 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

Object

Google Scholar

0.08302023 = sum of:
  0.06610346 = product of:
    0.19831038 = sum of:
      0.19831038 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19831038 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.016916772 = product of:
    0.033833545 = sum of:
      0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033833545 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968

0.0824348 = product of:
  0.1648696 = sum of:
    0.1648696 = product of:
      0.3297392 = sum of:
        0.3297392 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3297392 = score(doc=3226,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0053607 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature is analyzed by comparing its contents with those of Compendex, the premier engineering database. Records retrieved from Compendex were searched in Google Scholar, and a decade by decade comparison was done from the 1950s through 2007. The results show that the percentage of records appearing in Google Scholar increased over time, approaching a 90 percent matching rate for materials published after 1990.

Object

Google Scholar

0.0824348 = product of:
  0.1648696 = sum of:
    0.1648696 = product of:
      0.3297392 = sum of:
        0.3297392 = weight(_text_:scholar in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3297392 = score(doc=362,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0053607 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the unveiling of Google Scholar (GS), academic libraries have struggled with the question of how and where (and in some cases, whether) to integrate GS into the suite of research resources they present to their users. This paper presents a critical evaluation of GS, examining its arrangement, authority, content, comparability with traditional indexing services, creation and currency, and usability, and offers tentative conclusions about its "fit."

Object

Google Scholar

0.07981715 = product of:
  0.1596343 = sum of:
    0.1596343 = product of:
      0.3192686 = sum of:
        0.3192686 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3192686 = score(doc=3973,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.97343636 = fieldWeight in 3973, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Seit Juni 2005 ermöglicht EBSCOs Linkresolver Link Source(TM) allen A-to-Z-Kunden ihre Online-Ressourcen über die Suchmaschine Google Scholar anzusteuern. So sind in akademischen Bibliotheken, die Google Scholar nutzen, Links auf Ebene der einzelnen Artikel für die laufenden Abonnements der Einrichtung eingerichtet. Diese Links führen zum Link Source Menu der Bibliothek, von wo aus der Nutzer direkten Zugriff auf den gewünschten Artikel hat. Der elektronische Volltext ist somit nur ein oder zwei Mausklicks von der Suchergebnisliste in Google Scholar entfernt. Durch die Kombiantion von Google mit Google(TM) Scholars Indexierung von Fachaufsätzen, Dissertationen, Büchern, Vorabdrucken, Abstracts und technischen Berichten erhalten Bibliotheken Gelegenheit, ihre Sammlungen besser nutzbar zu machen. EBSCO bietet diesen Service allen A-to-ZKunden, die einen OpenURL Linkresolver eines beliebigen Anbieters nutzen, ohne zusätzliche Kosten an."

Object

Google Scholar

0.07981715 = product of:
  0.1596343 = sum of:
    0.1596343 = product of:
      0.3192686 = sum of:
        0.3192686 = weight(_text_:scholar in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3192686 = score(doc=928,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.97343636 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the content of Google Scholar and seven other databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, GEOBASE, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citation Index) within the multidisciplinary subject area of later-life migration. Each database is evaluated with reference to a set of 155 core articles selected in advance-the most important studies of later-life migration published from 1990 to 2000. Of the eight databases, Google Scholar indexes the greatest number of core articles (93%) and provides the most uniform publisher and date coverage. It covers 27% more core articles than the second-ranked database (SSCI) and 2.4 times as many as the lowest-ranked database (GEOBASE). At the same time, a substantial proportion of the citations provided by Google Scholar are incomplete (32%) or presented without abstracts (33%).

Object

Google Scholar

0.07981715 = product of:
  0.1596343 = sum of:
    0.1596343 = product of:
      0.3192686 = sum of:
        0.3192686 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3192686 = score(doc=2909,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.97343636 = fieldWeight in 2909, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar is often used to search for medical literature. Numbers of results reported by Google Scholar outperform the numbers reported by traditional databases. How reliable are these numbers? Why are often not all available 1,000 references shown? Methods: For several complex search strategies used in systematic review projects, the number of citations and the total number of versions were calculated. Several search strategies were followed over a two-year period, registering fluctuations in reported search results. Results: Changes in numbers of reported search results varied enormously between search strategies and dates. Theories for calculations of the reported and shown number of hits were not proved. Conclusions: The number of hits reported in Google Scholar is an unreliable measure. Therefore, its repeatability is problematic, at least when equal results are needed.

Object

Google Scholar

0.079324156 = product of:
  0.15864831 = sum of:
    0.15864831 = product of:
      0.4759449 = sum of:
        0.4759449 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4759449 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07870078 = product of:
  0.15740156 = sum of:
    0.15740156 = product of:
      0.31480312 = sum of:
        0.31480312 = weight(_text_:scholar in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31480312 = score(doc=4454,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.9598212 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because of a greater coverage of documentary sources in many languages that is greater than that of traditional bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is an ideal tool for examining the social sciences in non-Anglophone countries. We have therefore used it to study the scholarly output and impact of three scientific disciplines, management, economics, and sociology, in Spain and France, comparing some of the results with those retrieved with Scopus. Our findings show that scientific articles are the predominant form of scholarly communication in Google Scholar for our selected fields and countries. In addition, our results indicate that in Google Scholar the vernacular languages of each country are more used than English in all cases, but economics in France. The opposite occurs in Scopus, except for the case of sociology articles in France We also show that books receive on average more citations than other published documents in Google Scholar. Finally, we demonstrate that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.

Object

Google Scholar