, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 1635–1651 | Cite as

Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields

  • Hamid R. Jamali
  • Majid Nabavi


Google Scholar, a widely used academic search engine, plays a major role in finding free full-text versions of articles. But little is known about the sources of full-text files in Google Scholar. The aim of the study was to find out about the sources of full-text items and to look at subject differences in terms of number of versions, times cited, rate of open access availability and sources of full-text files. Three queries were created for each of 277 minor subject categories of Scopus. The queries were searched in Google Scholar and the first ten hits for each query were analyzed. Citations and patents were excluded from the results and the time frame was limited to 2004–2014. Results showed that 61.1 % of articles were accessible in full-text in Google Scholar; 80.8 % of full-text articles were publisher versions and 69.2 % of full-text articles were PDF. There was a significant difference between the means of times cited of full text items and non-full-text items. The highest rate of full text availability for articles belonged to life science (66.9 %). Publishers’ websites were the main source of bibliographic information for non-full-text articles. For full-text articles, educational (edu, ac.xx etc.) and org domains were top two sources of full text files. ResearchGate was the top single website providing full-text files (10.5 % of full-text articles).


Google Scholar Open access Full text version Citation version Citation number Scopus subject categories 



The study was funded by Kharazmi University and the senior author would like to thank the LIS department of Tabriz University for hosting him during his sabbatical while working on this study.

Supplementary material

11192_2015_1642_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 39 kb)


  1. Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382. doi: 10.5860/crl.65.5.372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. Science-Metrix. Report. Science Matrix Inc. Accessed 10 October 2013.
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gudnason, G. (2010). OpenAccess to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, 5(6), e11273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, C. M. (2001). The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charles, L., & Booth, H. A. (2011). An overview of open access in the fields of business and management. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 16(2), 108–124. doi: 10.1080/08963568.2011.554786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christianson, M. (2007). Ecology articles in Google Scholar: Levels of access to articles in core journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi: 10.5062/F4MS3QPD.Google Scholar
  9. Cothran, T. (2011). Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study. Library and Information Science Research, 33(4), 293–301. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by discipline. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST. Accessed 10 October 2013.
  14. Hartman, K., & Mullen, L. (2008). Google Scholar and academic libraries: An update. New Library World, 109(5/6), 211–222. doi: 10.1108/03074800810873560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haya, G., Nygren, E., & Widmark, W. (2007). Metalib and Google Scholar: A user study. Online Information Review, 31(3), 365–375. doi: 10.1108/14684520710764122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C. (2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College and Research Libraries, 70(3), 227–234. doi: 10.5860/crl.70.3.227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208–221. doi: 10.1108/14684520510598066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacsó, P. (2008). Google scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102–114. doi: 10.1108/14684520810866010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public Web. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e93949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065. doi: 10.1002/asi.20584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092–1096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lercher, A. (2008). A survey of attitudes about digital repositories among faculty at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), 408–415. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2008.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M., Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)? EC3 working papers, 19. Accessed 25 March 2015.
  26. 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. doi: 10.1002/asi.20677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miguel, S., Bongiovani, P. C., Gómez, N. D., & Bueno-de-la-Fuente, G. (2013). Prospect for development of open access in Argentina. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(1), 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. doi: 10.1353/pla.2006.0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180. doi: 10.1515/LIBR.2005.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ollé, C., & Borrego, A. (2010). A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Library and Information Science Research, 32(3), 221–228. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers. arXiv preprint. Accessed 10 October 2013.
  33. Pitol, S. P., & De Groote, S. L. (2014). Google Scholar versions: Do more versions of an article mean greater impact? Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 594–611. doi: 10.1108/LHT-05-2014-0039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Publishers Weekly. (2014). Global publishing leaders 2014: Reed Elsevier. Accessed 03 April 2015.
  35. Sanni, S. A., & Zainab, A. N. (2010). Google Scholar as a source for citation and impact analysis for a non-ISI indexed medical journal. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15(3), 35–51.Google Scholar
  36. Wagner, A. B. (2010). Open access citation advantage: An annotated bibliography. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi: 10.5062/F4Q81B0W.Google Scholar
  37. Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, 43(4), 1121–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China ranks second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 13, 7–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information Studies, Faculty of Psychology and EducationKharazmi UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations