Its relatively straightforward and familiar search interface, the breadth of its coverage and its sometimes startling ability to bring highly relevant results to the top have made GS the first port of call among an increasing number of academics and students. By searching the full text of the articles, rather than simply titles, abstracts and keywords, GS is often able to find very precise information more effectively than conventional databases.
Google scholar is not without its detractors, the most notable of whom is Peter Jacso of the University of Hawaii who deplores its looseness and inaccuracy compared to conventional databases -
Google Scholar (Redux) Péter's Digital Reference Shelf June 2005
Occasionally the GS spider gets things hilariously wrong. You can search it for influenza and vaccine as authors and get the following result -
In this case the article is an editorial without an author so GS has interpreted the paragraph headings as author names -
There are three possible approaches to Google Scholar all of which have serious advocates
- avoid using it and confine your searching to reputable, professionally-produced databases
- use only GS as other databases are too difficult and it produces a superior result
- use GS as an essential scholarly resource because of the depth of its full-text indexing but be aware of its limitations and always search other sources as well.
Not surprisingly I favour the third approach. Here is my own comparative study of Google Scholar and other information sources
Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source
No comments:
Post a Comment