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
In: Journal of Vegetation Science, Vol. 23, No. 6, 01.12.2012, p. 1197-1199.
Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
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 -