Archive for the 'Google and Other Search Engines' Category

"Does Google Scholar Contain All Highly Cited Documents (1950-2013)?"

Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Scholarly Metrics on November 4th, 2014

Alberto Martín-Martín et al. have self-archived "Does Google Scholar Contain All Highly Cited Documents (1950-2013)."

Here's an excerpt:

The study of highly cited documents on Google Scholar (GS) has never been addressed to date in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this work is to identify the set of highly cited documents in Google Scholar and define their core characteristics: their languages, their file format, or how many of them can be accessed free of charge. We will also try to answer some additional questions that hopefully shed some light about the use of GS as a tool for assessing scientific impact through citations. The decalogue of research questions is shown below:

1. Which are the most cited documents in GS?
2. Which are the most cited document types in GS?
3. What languages are the most cited documents written in GS?
4. How many highly cited documents are freely accessible?
4.1 What file types are the most commonly used to store these highly cited documents?
4.2 Which are the main providers of these documents?
5. How many of the highly cited documents indexed by GS are also indexed by WoS?
6. Is there a correlation between the number of citations that these highly cited documents have received in GS and the number of citations they have received in WoS?
7. How many versions of these highly cited documents has GS detected?
8. Is there a correlation between the number of versions GS has detected for these documents, and the number citations they have received?
9. Is there a correlation between the number of versions GS has detected for these documents, and their position in the search engine result pages?
10. Is there some relation between the positions these documents occupy in the search engine result pages, and the number of citations they have received?

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

Be Sociable, Share!

    Google Settles American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc.

    Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Google and Other Search Engines, Publishing on September 8th, 2014

    Google has settled the American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc. lawsuit. The agreement is confidential.

    Here's an excerpt from the press release:

    The agreement resolves a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google in April, 2010, bringing to an end more than four years of litigation. It does not involve any admission of liability by Google. As the settlement is between the parties to the litigation, the court is not required to approve its terms.

    This settlement does not affect Google's current litigation with the Authors Guild or otherwise address the underlying questions in that suit.

    Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

    Be Sociable, Share!

      "EFF Urges Appeals Court to Keep Protecting Fair Use"

      Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Google and Other Search Engines, Mass Digitizaton on July 15th, 2014

      EFF has released "EFF Urges Appeals Court to Keep Protecting Fair Use."

      Here's an excerpt:

      In this latest appeal, the Authors Guild (and its supporters) claim that fair use is being unjustly expanded, portraying Judge Chin's ruling and other recent court opinions as some kind of fair-use creep, stretching beyond the original intent of the doctrine. Specifically, the Guild argues that the first of the four statutory fair use factors—the purpose of the use, which asks whether the use of the copyrighted material is transformative and/or non-commercial—weighs against Google. The Authors Guild and its amici insist that a use cannot be transformative if it doesn't add new creative expression to the pre-existing work. But as Judge Chin so rightly recognized, a use can be transformative if serves a new and distinct purpose.

      Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

      Be Sociable, Share!

        "The Dark Side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: The Case of Latin-American Repositories"

        Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Institutional Repositories, Open Access on June 19th, 2014

        Enrique Orduña-Malea et al. have self-archived "The Dark Side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: The Case of Latin-American Repositories."

        Here's an excerpt:

        The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

        Be Sociable, Share!

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

          Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Scholarly Metrics on May 27th, 2014

          Enrique Orduna-Malea et al. have self-archived "Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search Dead?"

          Here's an excerpt:

          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: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, paying special attention to the following issues: coverage, correlations between journal rankings, and usage of these academic search engines. Additionally, selfelaborated data is offered, which are intended to provide current evidence about the popularity of these tools on the Web, by measuring the number of rich files PDF, PPT and DOC in which these tools are mentioned, the amount of external links that both products receive, and the search queries frequency from Google Trends. The poor results obtained by MAS led us to an unexpected and unnoticed discovery: Microsoft Academic Search is outdated since 2013.

          Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

          Be Sociable, Share!

            "The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web"

            Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Publishing, Scholarly Communication on May 12th, 2014

            Madian Khabsa and C. Lee Giles mail have published "The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web" in PLOS ONE.

            Here's an excerpt:

            The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. Our estimates show that at least 114 million English-language scholarly documents are accessible on the web, of which Google Scholar has nearly 100 million. Of these, we estimate that at least 27 million (24%) are freely available since they do not require a subscription or payment of any kind. In addition, at a finer scale, we also estimate the number of scholarly documents on the web for fifteen fields: Agricultural Science, Arts and Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary, as defined by Microsoft Academic Search. In addition, we show that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly, i.e., from 12 to 50%.

            Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

            Be Sociable, Share!

              "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!

                          Page 1 of 1712345...10...Last »

                          DigitalKoans

                          DigitalKoans

                          Digital Scholarship

                          Copyright © 2005-2015 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                          Creative Commons License
                          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.