How reliable is Google Scholar
Is Everything Reliable While Google Scholar is free and easy to use, it does not mean that everything found on it is a fully reliable source. It is up to the researcher to determine if the source is reliable.
Why not to use Google Scholar
Disadvantages of Using Google ScholarGoogle Scholar's coverage is is wide-ranging but not comprehensive.Google Scholar does not provide the criteria for what makes its results "scholarly".Google Scholar does not allow users to limit results to either peer reviewed or full text materials or by discipline.
Why is Google Scholar good for research
Google Scholar allows researchers to track research over time for a publication or researcher. These components of Google Scholar better inform researchers as they write literature reviews that underpin future studies. A history of a publication's citations can be accessed from a scholar's profile page.
Is Google Scholar an academic database
Established in 2004, Google Scholar is a massive database of scholarly literature that allows users to access information, cross reference it with other sources, and keep up with new research as it comes out. Using Google Scholar, you can access these kinds of sources: Journals. Conference papers.
Is Google Scholar better than Google
While Google searches the entire Web, Google Scholar limits its searches to only academic journal articles produced by commercial publishers or scholarly societies. Google Scholar eliminates material from corporations, non-scholarly organizations, and from individuals.
Why is Google Scholar more reliable than Google
Google Scholar Strengths
Google Scholar can lead to hundreds of relevant "scholarly" articles in seconds. It has a search interface similar to Google so it is clean and simple to use. Google Scholar includes a list of references under each source. Next to each paper list is "cited by" link.
What is the disadvantages of Google Scholar
Disadvantages of Using Google Scholar
It's coverage is wide-ranging but not comprehensive. It can be a good research source but should not be the only source you use. It's full- text versions of many items indexed are not available for free through on the web; however, many are accessible through the Library website.
Is Google Scholar a full text database
Most of the articles in Google Scholar come with an abstract, but some are also be available with free full text for everyone. If you don't have access to full text through your local library, here are some things to try to get the full text: Look for [DOC], [PDF] or [HTML] on the result list.
What is the difference between PubMed and Google Scholar
Whereas PubMed searches retrieve published literature from biomedical journals, Google Scholar searches retrieve both published and unpublished literature from a range of disciplines.
What is the disadvantage of Google Scholar
Disadvantages of Using Google Scholar
It's coverage is wide-ranging but not comprehensive. It can be a good research source but should not be the only source you use. It's full- text versions of many items indexed are not available for free through on the web; however, many are accessible through the Library website.
Is Microsoft academic better than Google Scholar
For the sample of publications by 145 academics, Microsoft Academic provided higher citation counts than both Scopus or WoS in Engineering, Social Sciences, and the Humanities, and similar figures in Life Sciences and Sciences. Google Scholar reported the highest citation counts in all disciplines.
Is Google Scholar better than Scopus
For the Computer Scientist Google Scholar provides five times as many citations as ISI, again reflecting the very significant number of book citations. So overall, although Google Scholar still has a slightly lower coverage of older publications than ISI, it is doing much better than Scopus in this respect.
Is Google Scholar better than PubMed
Conclusion: For the common clinical questions assessed in this study, PubMed Clinical Queries narrow search had the highest- quality, most relevant, and most readable hits. Google Scholar performed well, in some cases retrieving citations that other search engines did not. PubMed and Google Web were not as efficient.
How is Google Scholar different from PubMed
While PubMed orders articles in roughly reverse chronological order, Google Scholar aims to order articles by relevance using a proprietary algorithm that weighs information from the full text of each article, author, and journal information, and the number of times the article has been cited in other scholarly …
Is h-index in Google Scholar accurate
Since Google Scholar considers a wide range of articles in the calculation of h-index (even free articles available online and not published in valid journals), is not accurate like the other two databases, but since it is a free tool and there are many widgets to use, it is convenient.
Why does Google Scholar give more results than PubMed
Whereas PubMed searches retrieve published literature from biomedical journals, Google Scholar searches retrieve both published and unpublished literature from a range of disciplines. This may explain the greater overall number of records found per search (median of 1000 for Google Scholar and 148 for PubMed).
Is 57 a good h-index
What is a Good h-Index Hirsch reckons that after 20 years of research, an h-index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional. In his paper, Hirsch shows that successful scientists do, indeed, have high h-indices: 84% of Nobel prize winners in physics, for example, had an h-index of at least 30.
Is an h-index of 45 good
h index of 60 after 20 years, or 90 after 30 years, characterizes truly unique individuals. h index of 15-20, fellowship in the National Physical Society. h index of 45 or higher, membership in the National Academy of Sciences.
Is Google Scholar or PubMed better
Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles as PubMed within the first 40 records (average recall: 21.9% vs 10.9%; Table 3). Precision was similar in the two databases. When we considered both metrics together, Google Scholar demonstrated better recall and similar precision in 77% of searches.
Is h-index 18 good
H-index scores between 3 and 5 seem common for new assistant professors, scores between 8 and 12 fairly standard for promotion to the position of tenured associate professor, and scores between 15 and 20 about right for becoming a full professor.
Is 70 a good h-index
The statistical variance in the data set was quite large so the averages should be taken with a grain of salt. The same study found that if you are aiming for a Nobel Prize, your h-index needs to be at least 35 and preferably much closer to 70.
Is 16 a good h-index
H-index scores between 3 and 5 seem common for new assistant professors, scores between 8 and 12 fairly standard for promotion to the position of tenured associate professor, and scores between 15 and 20 about right for becoming a full professor.
Is 10 a good h-index
h-index scores between 3 and 5 feel common for new adjunct professors, scores between 8 and 12 fairly standard for creation to the position of tenured associate professor, and scores between 15 and 20 about right for coming a full professor.
Is 1,000 citations a lot
Some papers may receive only a few citations, while others may receive thousands or even tens of thousands. It is difficult to define a specific number of citations that constitutes a "lot" or is otherwise considered to be a good number, as this can vary depending on the context and the expectations for a given field.
Is 42 a good h-index
What is a Good h-Index Hirsch reckons that after 20 years of research, an h-index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional. In his paper, Hirsch shows that successful scientists do, indeed, have high h-indices: 84% of Nobel prize winners in physics, for example, had an h-index of at least 30.
