Archive for the 'Google and Other Search Engines' Category

"Checking In With Google Books, HathiTrust, and the DPLA"

Posted in Digital Curation & Digital Preservation, Digital Libraries, Google and Other Search Engines on November 14th, 2013

Naomi Eichenlaub has published "Checking In With Google Books, HathiTrust, and the DPLA" in Computers in Libraries.

Here's an excerpt:

Google Books and HathiTrust have been making headlines in the library world and beyond for years now, while a new player, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), has only recently entered the scene. This article will provide a "state of the environment" update for these digital library projects including project history and background. It will also examine some challenges common to all three projects including copyright, orphan works, metadata, and quality issues.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Be Sociable, Share!

    "Google Scholar as Replacement for Systematic Literature Searches: Good Relative Recall and Precision Are Not Enough"

    Posted in Google and Other Search Engines on October 29th, 2013

    Martin Boeker, Werner Vach and Edith Motschall have published "Google Scholar as Replacement for Systematic Literature Searches: Good Relative Recall and Precision Are Not Enough" in BMC Medical Research Methodology.

    Here's an excerpt:

    The objectives of this work are to measure 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 to provide an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific literature retrieval. . . .

    The reported relative recall must be interpreted with care. It is a quality indicator of Google Scholar confined to an experimental setting which is unavailable in systematic retrieval due to the severe limitations of the Google Scholar search interface. Currently, Google Scholar does not provide necessary elements for systematic scientific literature retrieval such as tools for incremental query optimization, export of a large number of references, a visual search builder or a history function. Google Scholar is not ready as a professional searching tool for tasks where structured retrieval methodology is necessary.

    Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

    Be Sociable, Share!

      "Just Google It—Digital Research Practices of Humanities Scholars"

      Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Scholarly Communication on September 12th, 2013

      Max Kemman, Martijn Kleppe, and Stef Scagliola have self-archived "Just Google It—Digital Research Practices of Humanities Scholars" in arXiv.org.

      Here's an excerpt:

      The transition from analogue to digital archives and the recent explosion of online content offers researchers novel ways of engaging with data. The crucial question for ensuring a balance between the supply and demand-side of data, is whether this trend connects to existing scholarly practices and to the average search skills of researchers. To gain insight into this process we conducted a survey among nearly three hundred (N= 288) humanities scholars in the Netherlands and Belgium with the aim of finding answers to the following questions: 1) To what extent are digital databases and archives used? 2) What are the preferences in search functionalities 3) Are there differences in search strategies between novices and experts of information retrieval? Our results show that while scholars actively engage in research online they mainly search for text and images. General search systems such as Google and JSTOR are predominant, while large-scale collections such as Europeana are rarely consulted.

      Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

      Be Sociable, Share!

        "A Perspective on the Merits of the Antitrust Objections to the Failed Google Books Settlement"

        Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, E-Books, Google and Other Search Engines, Mass Digitizaton, Publishing on August 19th, 2013

        Pamela Samuelson has published "A Perspective on the Merits of the Antitrust Objections to the Failed Google Books Settlement" in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Occasional Paper Series.

        Here's an excerpt:

        This Article responds to critics of the antitrust objections to the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] by making three main points. Part II explains that Judge Chin's incomplete and unpersuasive analysis of the antitrust objections to the proposed settlement agreement is best understood as an effort to encourage the settling parties to adopt more competitive terms in any revised settlement agreement. Part III points out that the DOJ did not reach definitive conclusions on antitrust issues posed by the ASA. The DOJ was, however, obliged to submit an interim analysis because Judge Chin wanted the government's input before he ruled on whether the settlement should be approved and the DOJ did a creditable job under the circumstances. Part IV contends that there was more merit to the DOJ's antitrust concerns about the proposed settlement than some commentators have recognized.

        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: Simple, Easy and Tempting"

          Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Metrics on December 6th, 2012

          Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, Nicolás Robinson-García, and Daniel Torres-Salinas have self-archived "Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: Simple, Easy and Tempting" in arXiv.org.

          Here's an excerpt:

          The launch of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics may provoke a revolution in the research evaluation field as it places within every researchers reach tools that allow bibliometric measuring. In order to alert the research community over how easily one can manipulate the data and bibliometric indicators offered by Google's products we present an experiment in which we manipulate the Google Citations profiles of a research group through the creation of false documents that cite their documents, and consequently, the journals in which they have published modifying their H index. . . . We analyse the malicious effect this type of practices can cause to Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics. Finally, we conclude with several deliberations over the effects these malpractices may have and the lack of control tools these tools offer.

          | Digital Scholarship's Digital/Print Books | Digital Scholarship |

          Be Sociable, Share!

            Authors Guild et al. v. Google: "Brief of Amici Curiae Academic Authors in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal"

            Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, E-Books, Google and Other Search Engines, Mass Digitizaton, Publishing on November 20th, 2012

            Pamela Samuelson and David R. Hansen have self-archived "Brief of Amici Curiae Academic Authors in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal" in SSRN.

            Here's an excerpt:

            Summary of argument: Class certification was improperly granted below because the District Court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis of the adequacy of representation factor, as Rule 23(a)(4) requires. The three individual plaintiffs who claim to be class representatives are not academics and do not share the commitment to broad access to knowledge that predominates among academics. . . .

            Academic authors desire broad public access to their works such as that which the Google Books project provides. Although the District Court held that the plaintiffs had inadequately represented the interests of academic authors in relation to the proposed settlement, it failed to recognize that pursuit of this litigation would be even more adverse to the interests of academic authors than the proposed settlement was. . . .

            In short, a "win" in this case for the class representatives would be a "loss" for academic authors. It is precisely this kind of conflict that courts have long recognized should prevent class certification due to inadequate representation. The District Court failed to adequately address this fundamental conflict in its certification order, though it was well aware of the conflict through submissions and objections received from the settlement fairness hearing through to the hearings on the most recent class certification motions. Because of that failure, the order certifying the class should be reversed

            | Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

            Be Sociable, Share!

              Digital Copyright: Google Asks Court to Reverse Class Certification Decision in The Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc.

              Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, E-Books, Google and Other Search Engines, Mass Digitizaton, Publishing on November 13th, 2012

              In a brief, Google has asked the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the class certification decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in The Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc. case.

              Here's the brief.

              Read more about it at "Google Asks Court to Ax Book-Scanning Suit from Authors Guild."

              | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Brief of Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Authors Guild v. Google"

                Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Digital Humanities, E-Books, Google and Other Search Engines, Mass Digitizaton, Publishing on October 21st, 2012

                Matthew L. Jockers, Matthew Sag, and Jason Schultz have self-archived "Brief of Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Authors Guild v. Google" in SSRN.

                Here's an excerpt:

                The brief argues that, just as copyright law has long recognized the distinction between protection for an author's original expression (e.g., the narrative prose describing the plot) and the public's right to access the facts and ideas contained within that expression (e.g., a list of characters or the places they visit), the law must also recognize the distinction between copying books for expressive purposes (e.g., reading) and nonexpressive purposes, such as extracting metadata and conducting macroanalyses. We amici urge the court to follow established precedent with respect to Internet search engines, software reverse engineering, and plagiarism detection software and to hold that the digitization of books for text-mining purposes is a form of incidental or intermediate copying to be regarded as fair use as long as the end product is also nonexpressive or otherwise non-infringing.

                | Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 1 of 2512345...1020...Last »

                  DigitalKoans

                  DigitalKoans

                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2013 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License

                  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.