Talk:Google Scholar/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Google Scholar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
but help is on the way
- It depends where you are. if you are outside a major university, your comment is certainly not without foundation, though in general it is possible for anyone to --eventually--get copies of articles that are mentioned through Interlibrary Loan; this can be a rapid process, but usually is not. If critical, it is possible to purchase most individual articles from the publisher, at a cost ranging from $5 to $35 an article, or through document dellivery services such as the British Library which offer copies of almost anything through their {http://direct.bl.uk/ copy service} at similar prices.
For a discussion of ways to solve the fundamental problem and provide everyone with immediate access to all published research articles, see open access. I and many others have been engaged in advocating for this for a number of years, and there are modest signs of progress.
Even outside a university it can be useful:
- Some journals are already Open Access, including such major journals as PLoS Biology
- Many journals become available by open access after a an Embargoperiod.
- Some individual articles are now available.
- It lists libraries that hold the book or journal, so you can visit them
- It links to later and related articles, which may be available
- but, most important, it provides a good link to Google, which lists primarily versions that are available without charge. In general, the link to Google is a well-constructed one, which should find exactly what you want, probably more precisey than a search made by an individual user.
Unfortunately, there is no direct way of finding out if you will have access to an article except by trying all the possibilities. GS is useful in at least bringing them together.
you should also try Scirus, which can be set to give free web copies only.
If you are searching for recent biomedical articles, you may do best at PubMed, which will often give listing to a free copy available through PubMed Central
(I intend this as part of an article in WP about how to access journal articles, and would like suggestions for an article name. Most of it is not specific to GS, which may just have a link. I do not necessarily want to add it to the interlibrary loan page, which is general information and what I've just written is subject to very rapid change.) DGG 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction
I've just removed the following from the article:
- Using its "group of" feature, it shows the various available links to the journal article. If the article is available freely on the web, those links will be shown, but otherwise it provides only links to the subscription-based sites (At least, that's what is was doing in September 2006. In some earlier versions, its "Group of" feature sometimes also provided a link to free full text versions of articles.) Access to non-subscription versions is now provided by a link to Google, where one can find such open access articles.
(emphases added)
As you can see, this paragraph contradicts itself (and jumps around in time to boot). I can't make sense of it; can anyone else? --zenohockey 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is widely known and cited as listing non-subscription versions. It once did, it no longer does, and this seem ot in the least confusing of contradictory. I have reworded. Please talk before you revert.DGG 03:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Scientists vs. scholars
I've changed 'scientists' to 'scholars' in the first paragraph, in order to more accurately reflect the coverage of GS. I've also added a brief gloss on the phrase 'stand on the shoulders of giants'. fi99ig 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Lulu?
Any idea whether it extends it's dbase to lulu.com and other releasing mediums of that nature? I've found a lot of great thesis published there in the past and am unsure whether to search there as well as the usual places for academic articles or whether scholar.google covers them all? Jachin 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Serious problems with Google Scholar "cited by" option
I like Scholar. It is so much easier and faster than Web of Science that I use it much more regularly, even though my university pays for WoS. But I have been bitten by it so many times now that I spent the larger part of the day performing the following little survey. I chose a landmark article and counted the number of references citing it, according to GS and according to WoS. Here are the results:
- 22 papers cite this article and appear in both GS and WoS.
- 29 papers cite this article and appear only in WoS.
- 2 papers cite this article and appear only in GS.
- 5 conference papers cite the article and appear only in GS (WoS specifically does not index conference papers).
- 6 additional items listed by GS are not really papers; they include 3 dissertations, 1 book review and 2 unpublished working papers.
Conclusion: Google Scholar may be convenient and fast, but under no circumstances should it be trusted to give you a full list of citing papers. Interestingly, most of the papers which GS does not list are found if you search directly for them in GS; they just don't appear as works citing the original article. --Zvika 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- GS is not reliable for older articles in technology, nor are any internet based sources. This paper was published in 1969. DGG (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you mean. Web of Science is an internet based source too, and it seems to work fine. Also, almost all of the papers listed by WoS can be found online and are available through GS by searching for them directly; they just aren't listed as citing the original paper. It's clearly a bug, or an inaccuracy in GS's OCR. --Zvika 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct that I oversimplified., but it was the end of the day.
- In the sense I mean it,internet based means deriving its fundamental information from the internet.
- WoS derives the information about papers and references from examining the references in papers and coding them. Most of these of course are now available in electronic form from the publishers, though not all. and it includes the years for which electronic versions have not yet been made available. It essentially includes all publishers--it tries to get publishers to donate the access, and so great is the prestige from being included that essentially all publishers do; for those that do not, it simply buys a subscription. One then accesses it through the internet (in the past, via print or CD, options which remain available today). GS goes from web links between papers as available on the internet from the publishers, supplemented by other internet source from Google and google books. It has no mechanism at all for accessing print material outside of Google books. It also is dependent on the goodwill of the publishers. Until very recently, neither Elsevier nor American Chemical Society made current material available to it. This is no longer the case, except that not all the material from these publishers has in fact been entered yet. So references to material there made from other journals is present; references from their own journals to anything has not been present. I have not checked on how complete it is since early July, & it changes fast.
- You are right that the time depth in GS is increased, now that backfiles are available for most journals. Again, I have not checked since early in the summer., and I should recheck. But the exact methods GS uses are not made public, and one must get information through reverse engineering.
- So I would like to do a failure analysis of your results, and I'd appreciate if you could post them here, or email them to me through my WP link, or I'll send you my email address. I want to see if I can explain the results. If not, I want to consult my colleagues, included others studying this source,and those on the appropriate professional list. WoS at least replies to inquiries. It's not a bug in the usual sense, and I don't think GS does OCR (GB does, of course, and the errors there are very many). If you know of GS doing OCR or other material I'd love to know about it & so would other science librarians. DGG (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The list is quite long and I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here, so I emailed it to you. If anyone else is interested, let me know. Regarding the source of the information, as I said, almost all of the papers that GS doesn't identify can be found on the internet, and can even be found using GS if you search for them directly.
- I don't know if GS does OCR or just uses OCR results implanted in PDF files, but I've seen it find things resulting from incorrect OCR identification many times. --Zvika 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- GS is not reliable for older articles in technology, nor are any internet based sources. This paper was published in 1969. DGG (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
bloody useless
Bloody useless if the work it's pointing at that you're trying to read is on JSTOR or suchlike, which requires a password (bugmenot doesn't work) to use it. Thanks for the easy access to.......articles I can't access... Thanks Google! -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
but JSTOR will reveal the authors, who you can contact to ask for a PDF or reprint Jerry Vanclay 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the paylink to the $30 JSTOR article which you were probably talking about. Such links are not admissible per Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration (see also "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" on the same page). If such a publication needs to be cited as a reference for information in the article, standard bibliographical information should be used to identify it - just like a book should be referred by ISBN etc., not by a link to a web shop which sells it. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worth mentioning in the current article that the majority of use of Google Scholar comes from academia, specifically institutions that use it as a tool with their ezproxy servers. That's why you don't have an [[open access] search-modifier, although you can always narrow down the search results via filetype:PDF and other tricks. -- kanzure (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation (example) for erroneous additional search results
Searching for "autor:witten-e +arxiv" leads on result page 45 to the result
Edge excitations of the Chern Simons matrix theory for the FQHE ID Rodriguez, J Kluson, RG Cai, B Hu, Y Zhang, R … - eprint arXiv: 0812.4531, 2008 - adsabs.harvard.edu ... Authors: Rodriguez, Ivan D. Publication: eprint arXiv:0812.4531. Publication Date: 12/2008. Origin: ARXIV. Keywords: High Energy Physics - Theory. ...
in which the string "Witten" does not appear at all. Direct link to search result: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=autor:witten-e+%2Barxiv&hl=de&lr=&start=440&sa=N direct link to resulting paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4531v2.pdf 84.163.117.6 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Does not cover individual university pages?
This part seems to be outdated: "As of December 2006, it provides access to both published versions and on major open access repositories, but does still not cover individual university pages". Nowadays Google Scholar provides links to self-archived versions on personal home pages, etc. But do we have a reliable source for this? — Miym (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- It should read individual faculty pages, & I have made the change. I will look for a source, other than my own postings in various places on the subject, and ask an expert I know who has published on similar questions. DGG (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Some search results are not entirely traceable....
Could experts diagnose the problem....???
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yiz9gPJBiNIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Madhyamaka+materialism+permanence&ots=GHRNbLohIY&sig=EyCvUng1UsgzYvSJq-ENYCdbVqs#v=onepage&q=dialectical%20analysis%20employed%20by%20the%20Madhyamaka%20is%20evident%20in&f=false --222.64.26.148 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sijcbLUrR_QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Madhyamaka+materialism+permanence&ots=eox3NxdX-9&sig=HdRZiEJTrdP4F4cu5y1JN-5njsw#v=onepage&q=dMadhyamika%2FMadhyamaka%20Mahayana%20manas%20materialism%20maya%20meditation%20Mohism&f=false --222.64.26.148 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Regional Google scholar is limited....
See the search results of one term from different regions
From Singapore
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
From Australia
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
From Hong Kong
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
From Taiwan
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
--222.67.218.121 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
From the above searches, it seems that the regional search results are not prioritized
A call for another Google scholar equivalent....
as it is necessary for search result validation --222.64.23.7 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Live Search Academic can only be called an alternative, as it is not open sourced, but requiring user login--222.64.23.7 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviews sourced from its own....
--222.64.23.7 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
--222.64.23.7 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
....
....
....
and many more...--222.64.23.7 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The section of Features and specification needs to be rearranged to have a better view.....
Especially the specification has to be either in list view or in table view
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If my memory serves me well, the expansion sign that I put for this section is not traceable any more, instead the current sign is not dated which is not my usual practice--124.78.210.114 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Could the service disclose the ......
the setting of Scholar Preferences so that the publications by different languages can be compared visiblely...???
Please desensitizing of keyword orders and spelling
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+book+entitle&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+entitle+book&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
through automatically adding NEAR among the keywords, so that variations of the search results can be decreased when a large amount volumes of search results are returned, eventhough sometimes it may not be working very well --222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Enabling of automatic spelling checking
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=entile+book&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=entile%20book&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=entile+book&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You see --- how is the last search result, with which the spelling checking is disabled --222.67.213.2 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Info about the google scholar alternatives
- http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=google+scholar+alternative&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
- http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+google+scholar+alternatives&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
New features
It seems to calculate the h-index and what not now, e.g. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ci8Ix08AAAAJ&hl=en Someone should try and find where they announced the introduction of this feature (the official Google blog or something) so it can be added to this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's mentioned, with a source, in H-index#Calculation. According to that article, it was introduced in July 2011. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not as bad either
GS is a complex project that has changed direction several times. It's history and current state needs to be described at kept up to date, and the BETA warning on the page is certainly appropriate.
- It is different in one conspicuous way from almost all other services--it is at no cost to the user. -- theres a nother prominent one, with an aticle stub, Scirus.
- GS also has the special feature that in its current incarnation, it can be used as a citation index. There are a number of links to be made here. The German version does discuss this.
- It was originally aimed at linking to open access versions. Publishers began adding crawlable links to their subscription versions, now almost universal for major scholarly journals. At present, it finds the links to the subscription versions only, and links to a search of the main Google space for open access versions.
What it will be like a month from now, I can not guess, because it does not depend only on Google but upon its sources as well.
- Wikipedia should be good at dealing with all this, if those who use it keep updating the article.
- NPOV is not just wording--it is (or, imho, should be) describing what is good and what less good.
- "references" here are a little tricky, because everything published is out of date,
- including Jacso, which is now two years old and deserves a warning.
- similarly the item from UBC is a single minor pragraph.
- and JR's article is mostly about A&I resources in general ,and does not even mentiont GS.
- the Nature links are hopeless out of date.
- but the HEP link is both good and recent.
- I think the least controversal way to at least hint at this is to add the dates to the references that do not already have them, and a word of comment. I am about to do so.
- I defer removing the JR and the UBC to see if there are protests;
- There are more up to date ones, and I will add them, but not today. see Google: bakkalbasi google scholar
- As in many computer oriented subjects, I think WP is likely to be& remain the best source, because we can keep it up to date in whatever detail necessary.
DGG 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that the last statement is both inaccurate/inappropiate and subjective. WP only cites these sources, while Google Scholar is meant to catalogue them. 92.81.85.41 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Internet isn't free, and Google isn't free, either
I have major problems with the first paragraph of the article's main page, where it currently says:
Google Scholar is a freely-accessible Web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
Rather, Internet isn't free, and it sure as heck isn't inexpensive. That Google Scholar doesn't "charge" anything, sure as heck doesn't make it "free." The cost of accessing the information is actually distributed amongst those who believe in, and agree to conduct their transmissions by, the current point to point protocol, and depending on the way the costs are distributed, the costs are far from minimal, and certainly quite far from being free.
The main page to this article could be improved by changing the word "freely-accessible" to inexpensive and rewriting the word order so it makes this clear. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- when we talk about freely accessible in any internet context we mean freely accessible , except for the need of access to the internet. For an internet searching service, how could it possibly not require access to the internet? How could it possibly be any freer to the user? DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nitpicking... I'm guessing you had a bad day paying for your internet bills?
- Jokes aside, it's a free service as much as a free service can be. Stating otherwise is equivalent to stating that breathing air is not free - because you have to pay for the food that you require to eat so that you can breathe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.85.41 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Web of Science partnership
The partnership with Web of Science has born some fruit, apparently in Feb 2015, which hasnt been mentioned here or on the Web of Science page. Another link about it:[1]
I see what seems to be related news from late 2013 of the partnership being established.[2][3] John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Google Scholar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421014001/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/science-directly-into-google.html to http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/science-directly-into-google.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607104842/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6698580.html?q=jacso to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6698580.html?q=jacso
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122224124/http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/20/did-a-romanian-researcher-successfully-game-google-scholar-to-raise-his-citation-count/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/20/did-a-romanian-researcher-successfully-game-google-scholar-to-raise-his-citation-count/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107175135/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624020514/http://scholar.google.com/ to https://scholar.google.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
merge
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Google Scholar and academic libraries here? fgnievinski (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: The proposed merger of these articles makes no sense to me. Google Scholar deserves a distinct article so that history, features, and criticisms can be assessed in a holistic way and found together.~Mack2~ 01:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The academic libraries article looks like a POV content fork and as such should be merged back (with the POV parts removed) into the main article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Strange final sentence
The final sentence "ASEO has negatives." seems to inadequately describe the citation, and I suggest the sentence is expanded to more accurately describe the negatives rather than just stating that negatives exist, ideally by someone who has experience in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deceitful Sloth (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BraeFlem.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"Google Scholar and academic libraries" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Google Scholar and academic libraries and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Google Scholar and academic libraries until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)