Google Scholar and the gray literature: A reply to Bonato's review

@article{OrduaMalea2017GoogleSA,
  title={Google Scholar and the gray literature: A reply to Bonato's review},
  author={Enrique Ordu{\~n}a-Malea and Alberto Mart{\'i}n-Mart{\'i}n and Emilio Delgado L{\'o}pez-C{\'o}zar},
  journal={ArXiv},
  year={2017},
  volume={abs/1702.03991}
}
Recently, a review concluded that Google Scholar (GS) is not a suitable source of information "for identifying recent conference papers or other gray literature publications". The goal of this letter is to demonstrate that GS can be an effective tool to search and find gray literature, as long as appropriate search strategies are used. To do this, we took as examples the same two case studies used by the original review, describing first how GS processes original's search strategies, then… Expand
Can the impact of grey literature be assessed? An investigation of UK government publications cited by articles and books
TLDR
The results showed that Scopus citations are more common than Google Books citations to UK government publications, especially for older documents, and for those in the broad grey literature areas of Healthcare, Education and Science. Expand
Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?
TLDR
A new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google is introduced, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage. Expand
Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK
TLDR
This article explores the relative merits of alternative methods for the large-scale assessment of dissertation impact, using 150,740 UK doctoral dissertations from 2009–2018 and suggests that Google Scholar finds more citations, but does not report information about all Dissertations within a repository and is not a practical tool for large- scale impact assessment. Expand
Online Indicators for Non-Standard Academic Outputs
  • M. Thelwall
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators
  • 2019
TLDR
This chapter reviews webometric, altmetric, and other online indicators for the impact of nonstandard academic outputs, such as software, data, presentations, images, videos, blogs, and grey literature to discuss the limitations of online data and summarize recommendations for interpreting impact evidence. Expand
The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: a study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa
  • S. Bangani
  • Political Science, Computer Science
  • Scientometrics
  • 2018
TLDR
The citation and PDF views data show that the Engineering ETDs have commendable academic and societal impacts but the academic impacts show scant correlation with the societal impacts although some positive trends are noticeable when looking at the origin of PDF views and citations by country. Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 18 REFERENCES
Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
TLDR
GS’ constantly-changing content, algorithms and database structure make it a poor choice for systematic reviews, and further research is needed to determine when and how it can be used alone. Expand
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough
TLDR
This work measures the relative recall and precision of searches with Google Scholar under conditions which are derived from structured search procedures conventional in scientific literature retrieval; and provides an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific Literature retrieval. Expand
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
TLDR
Although its coverage and precision are acceptable, GS, because of its incomplete recall, should not be used as a single source in SR searching. Expand
Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources
TLDR
Although further studies are warranted, PM and GS appear to be complementary and their integration could greatly improve the search of references in medical research. Expand
Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar.
TLDR
Google Scholar articles were more likely to be classified as relevant, had higher numbers of citations and were published in higher impact factor journals. Expand
Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
TLDR
With some improvement in the research options, Google Scholar could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews. Expand
Google Scholar Versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions
TLDR
Assessment in both databases the availability of primary literature target articles; total number of citations; availability of free, full-text journal articles; and number of primary Literature target articles retrieved by year within the first 100 citations of the search results found no significant differences. Expand
PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar – Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine?
TLDR
The search features provided by PubMed/MEDLINE with a comprehensive investigation of medical documents are found to be exceptional compared to the other search engines, but the most effective search engine for an overview of a topic is Scopus, followed by ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. Expand
Retrieving Clinical Evidence: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches
TLDR
For quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles. Expand
Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study
TLDR
The assertion that Google Scholar, nor one of the other databases investigated, is on its own, an acceptable database to support systematic review searching is supported. Expand
...
1
2
...