From: "Blobaum, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:23:51 +0000
Google Scholar retrieves "relevant" articles from predatory publishers
without a reputable peer review process.
Do you want your healthcare provider make decisions about your health
after reading some article retrieved from Google Scholar without any
authoritative review for what is included?
Paul Blobaum MA, MS
Full Professor
Health and Human Services Librarian
Governors State University Library
University Park, IL 60484
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim Henderson, Mr." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:15:22 +0000
There is a recent article on this topic:
Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H, Cevik C, Nugent K. Medical literature
searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Info Libr
J. 2012 Sep;29(3):214-22.
Here is a PubMed link, which also provides related articles and a link
to full text for those with access to Wiley journals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22925384
The authors found that:
"PubMed searches and Google Scholar searches often identify different
articles. In this study, Google Scholar articles were more likely to
be classified as relevant, had higher numbers of citations and were
published in higher impact factor journals. The identification of
frequently cited articles using Google Scholar for searches probably
has value for initial literature searches."
Subsequent discussion on the medical library listserv (medlib-l; some
feel for the discussion here, found via Google:
http://thlibrary.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/googlevspubmed/)
revealed that the article may actually be a comparison of free text
searching (the Google Scholar search) vs. controlled vocabulary
searching (the PubMed search). So, what this article brings out,
perhaps, is that full text searching brings up more relevant articles.
For complete retrieval, one should use both databases, as this
article concludes.
One can do free text searching on PubMed so one could infer from the
article that good literature searching requires the use of librarians
with searching expertise, who know that good search strategies include
a mix of full text searching (title searching for really high
relevance) and controlled vocabulary.
Previous work I have done confirmed the logical conclusion that Google
Scholar favours older literature since its secret search algorithm
ranks more highly linked / cited articles - see my 2005 article, which
gives some comparisons of various databases/sources for various
purposes, "Google Scholar: a source for clinicians?" at:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/172/12/1549.full.
(Have done more recent tests with similar results, although some
topics now retrieve Google Book results, which confuses the
situation.)
In conclusion, Google Scholar may replace academic databases for some
but not all purposes. For an overview on "mobile learning", Google
Scholar would provide a cross-disciplinary view pulling highly cited
articles. For a thorough literature review on mobile learning, one
would want articles about "students with iPhones", which would be
missed by the phrase "mobile learning" and might be covered by
controlled vocabulary indexing in various academic databases. Another
question is whether faculty should accept papers based on literature
searches using just Google Scholar with no help from a librarian, but
that is a topic for another day.
Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim Henderson
Librarian (Retired), McGill University
Consultant, Henderson & Associates
Canadian Virtual Health Library /
Bibliothèque virtuelle canadienne de la santé
Board Member (Treasurer) & CIHR Grant Co-Investigator
Montreal QC H4A 3L7 Canada
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://wikisites.mcgill.ca/globalhealthguide
http://cvhl.ca http://cvhl.ca/fr
|
