Scientometrics

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 321–331

Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences

Article

Abstract

In order to measure the degree to which Google Scholar can compete with bibliographical databases, search results from this database is compared with Thomson’s ISI WoS (Institute for Scientific Information, Web of Science). For earth science literature 85% of documents indexed by ISI WoS were recalled by Google Scholar. The rank of records displayed in Google Scholar and ISI WoS, is compared by means of Spearman’s footrule. For impact measures the h-index is investigated. Similarities in measures were significant for the two sources.

Keywords

Citation analysis Similarity measures Rankings Impact measures 

References

  1. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belew, R. K. (2005). Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. Journal. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0504036.
  4. Garfield, E. (1990). How ISI selects journals for coverage—quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, 22, 5–13.Google Scholar
  5. GeoRef. The American Geological Institute. (No Date). About GeoRef. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.agiweb.org/georef/about/.
  6. Google Scholar. (No Date). About Google Scholar. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html.
  7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ISI WoS. Thomson Scientific. (No Date). Web of Science. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/products/wos/.
  9. Jacsó, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pauly, D., & Stergiou, K. I. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s citation index and Google’s scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2005, 33–35.Google Scholar
  14. Redner, S. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter, 4(2), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scopus. Elsevier. (No Date). Scopus Info—Scopus in Detail—What does it cover? Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://info.scopus.com/detail/what/.
  16. Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, 43(4), 1121–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University LibraryUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations