Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases

  title={Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases},
  author={Michael Gusenbauer},
Information on the size of academic search engines and bibliographic databases (ASEBDs) is often outdated or entirely unavailable. Hence, it is difficult to assess the scope of specific databases, such as Google Scholar. While scientometric studies have estimated ASEBD sizes before, the methods employed were able to compare only a few databases. Consequently, there is no up-to-date comparative information on the sizes of popular ASEBDs. This study aims to fill this blind spot by providing a… 

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

A novel scientometrics method is introduced and applied to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia and illustrates not only differences in the disciplinary coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science, but also of less frequently analyzed databases.

SEforRA: A Bibliometrics-ready Academic Digital Library Search Engine Alternative

SEforRA extracts and processes data from CrossRef, publishers, and other sources to provide an integrated platform for researchers to search and retrieve publication metadata, which is ready to use further in their research.

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World

An all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place is provided.

Irreproducibility in searches of scientific literature: A comparative analysis

A comparative analysis of time‐synchronized searches at different institutional locations in the world is presented and it is revealed a large variation among search platforms and showed that PubMed and Scopus returned consistent results to identical search strings from different locations.

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

This paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study.

ResearchGate and Google Scholar: How much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?

There are significantly high differences in publication counts and citations for the same authors in the two platforms, with Google Scholar having higher counts for a vast majority of the cases.

Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: a retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

This work proves that the url-based method to calculate institutional productivity in GS is not a good proxy for the total number of publications indexed in WoS and Scopus, at least in the national context analyzed.

Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems

The study reveals that search engine tend to provide more resources than do commercial databases but also that commercial databases have better coverage than institutional repositories.

In-text citation’s frequencies-based recommendations of relevant research papers

The evaluation results indicate that in-text citation frequency has attained higher precision in finding relevant papers than other state-of-the-art techniques such as content, bibliographic coupling, and metadata-based techniques.

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility and to demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system.



Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis

A novel approach is introduced to check the usefulness of this database for bibliometric analysis, and especially research evaluation, instead of names of authors or institutions, a webometric analysis of academic web domains is performed.

Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar

Three empirical methods are presented, apply and discussed: an external estimate based on empirical studies of Google Scholar coverage, and two internal estimate methods based on direct, empty and absurd queries, respectively, which place the estimated size of Google scholar at around 160–165 million documents.

Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment

It is concluded that Google Scholar presents a broader view of the academic world because it has brought to light a great amount of sources that were not previously visible.

Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources

A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system.

Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead?

The goal of this working paper is to summarize the main empirical evidences provided by the scientific community as regards the comparison between the two main citation-based academic search engines:

An exploratory study of Google Scholar

The study shows deficiencies in the coverage and up‐to‐dateness of the GS index and points out which web servers are the most important data providers for this search service and which information sources are highly represented.

A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases

Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally

Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation

Results show that GS normalization is possible although at the moment it requires extensive manual involvement in generating and validating the data and a comparison of the normalized results for journal papers with WoS data shows a high degree of convergent validity.