Abstract
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).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
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.
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.
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. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.
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.
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. http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol1/Gargouri_Green_285.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
Hartman, K., & Mullen, L. (2008). Google Scholar and academic libraries: An update. New Library World, 109(5/6), 211–222. doi:10.1108/03074800810873560.
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.
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.
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.
Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208–221. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066.
Jacsó, P. (2008). Google scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102–114. doi:10.1108/14684520810866010.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464. Accessed 25 March 2015.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2005.170.
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.
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. https://dspace.muni.cz/jspui/bitstream/ics_muni_cz/1022/1/ZatrochovaEsej.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
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.
Publishers Weekly. (2014). Global publishing leaders 2014: Reed Elsevier. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/63099-global-publishing-leaders-2014-reed-elsevier.html Accessed 03 April 2015.
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.
Wagner, A. B. (2010). Open access citation advantage: An annotated bibliography. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi:10.5062/F4Q81B0W.
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.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China ranks second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 13, 7–9.
Acknowledgments
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jamali, H.R., Nabavi, M. Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics 105, 1635–1651 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2
Keywords
- Google Scholar
- Open access
- Full text version
- Citation version
- Citation number
- Scopus subject categories