Where you search is what you get: Literature mining - Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science

Michael Beckmann; H. Von Wehrden

doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01454.x

Where you search is what you get: Literature mining - Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science

Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research

Standard

Where you search is what you get: Literature mining - Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science. / Beckmann, Michael ; Von Wehrden, H.
In: Journal of Vegetation Science, Vol. 23, No. 6, 01.12.2012, p. 1197-1199.

Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research

Bibtex

@article{1252dbbce3b34548a92c1756e2660a9e,

title = "Where you search is what you get: Literature mining - Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science",

abstract = "Question: Is Google Scholar superior in literature search compared to the Web of Science? Location: The Internet. Methods: The maximum number of papers dealing with specific subjects was derived from a published review and compared with Google Scholar and Web of Science search results using GLM and a post-hoc test. Results: Search results acquired through Google Scholar were not significantly different from the maximum number of papers found by manual search, while the Web of Science search delivered significantly less. Conclusion: Researchers should give more prominent recognition to Google Scholar as a search tool, especially when conducting quantative reviews and meta-analysis. We compared the performance of Google Scholar and the Web of Science using a dataset from a quantitative review. Search results acquired through Google Scholar contained significantly more relevant results than those delivered by the Web of Science. Due to its full text search capabilities, Google Scholar should be recognized more as a useful search tool by the scientific community.",

keywords = "Ecosystems Research, Full text search, Literature search, Meta-analysis, Ordination, References mining",

author = "Michael Beckmann and {Von Wehrden}, H.",

year = "2012",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01454.x",

language = "English",

volume = "23",

pages = "1197--1199",

journal = "Journal of Vegetation Science",

issn = "1100-9233",

publisher = "Opulus Press",

number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Where you search is what you get

T2 - Literature mining - Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science

AU - Beckmann, Michael

AU - Von Wehrden, H.

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Question: Is Google Scholar superior in literature search compared to the Web of Science? Location: The Internet. Methods: The maximum number of papers dealing with specific subjects was derived from a published review and compared with Google Scholar and Web of Science search results using GLM and a post-hoc test. Results: Search results acquired through Google Scholar were not significantly different from the maximum number of papers found by manual search, while the Web of Science search delivered significantly less. Conclusion: Researchers should give more prominent recognition to Google Scholar as a search tool, especially when conducting quantative reviews and meta-analysis. We compared the performance of Google Scholar and the Web of Science using a dataset from a quantitative review. Search results acquired through Google Scholar contained significantly more relevant results than those delivered by the Web of Science. Due to its full text search capabilities, Google Scholar should be recognized more as a useful search tool by the scientific community.

AB - Question: Is Google Scholar superior in literature search compared to the Web of Science? Location: The Internet. Methods: The maximum number of papers dealing with specific subjects was derived from a published review and compared with Google Scholar and Web of Science search results using GLM and a post-hoc test. Results: Search results acquired through Google Scholar were not significantly different from the maximum number of papers found by manual search, while the Web of Science search delivered significantly less. Conclusion: Researchers should give more prominent recognition to Google Scholar as a search tool, especially when conducting quantative reviews and meta-analysis. We compared the performance of Google Scholar and the Web of Science using a dataset from a quantitative review. Search results acquired through Google Scholar contained significantly more relevant results than those delivered by the Web of Science. Due to its full text search capabilities, Google Scholar should be recognized more as a useful search tool by the scientific community.

KW - Ecosystems Research

KW - Full text search

KW - Literature search

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Ordination

KW - References mining

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869090907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01454.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01454.x

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

AN - SCOPUS:84869090907

VL - 23

SP - 1197

EP - 1199

JO - Journal of Vegetation Science

JF - Journal of Vegetation Science

SN - 1100-9233

IS - 6

ER -

Related by journal

Elevational shifts in tree community composition in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest related to climate change

Bergamin, R. S., Galvao Bastazini, V. A., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Bordin, K. M., Klipel, J., Debastiani, V. J., Vibrans, A. C., Loyola, R. & Müller, S. C., 01.07.2024, In: Journal of Vegetation Science. 35, 4, 10 p., e13289.