USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Hello,
I need help with an assignment for a strategic analysis class. I need it to be about 4 pages or longer. It needs scholarly journal references mainly but books, magazine articles and newspaper articles can be used. It needs at least 5 references used. I am attaching several articles from my school library which are scholarly journals and articles that can be used (you can use other references too). Once complete, I have to submit through turnitin.com and have the teacher view to make sure nothing is copied off of another paper or plagerized from another source. Please make sure that there are in-text citations use in APA format and the reference pags at the end to list all of the references.
This paper is on Google.
A written research paper in APA format. Be certain in writing that you adhere to APA citation guidelines (in text and Reference). Make sure to proofread carefully. Grammar and spelling errors will impact the grading. The paper is a Strategic Plan of your organization. The paper will be worth 30% of your grade. Please read the following for the design and requirements of the Strategic Plan:
The Strategic Plan of your organization should contain the following:
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
This section will present your identification of the firm’s strengths and weaknesses, which emanate from your value chain and functional analyses. There is a maximum of five strengths and five weaknesses and your presentation of them should be prioritized. Exhibits are effective tools to provide strong support for each strength and weakness. Please be as specific as possible and quantify your analysis where appropriate. This section will provide the first part of the foundation for your identification of strategic issues and related recommendations through your analysis of the organization’s core competencies, competitive advantages and organizational weaknesses.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section will present your identification of the major external threats and opportunities currently facing the organization. These will be generated from your analysis of the industry and general environmental factors in light of the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. A maximum of five threats and five opportunities should be identified and should be presented in a prioritized order. Use power point exhibits to support your analysis, be specific and quantify your analysis where possible. This section will provide the second part of the foundation for your identification of a strategic issue and the formulation of related recommendations through your analysis of driving forces, key success factors and industry attractiveness.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 12:03
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Ramachandran, Shalini
Publication info: Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 02 Oct 2012: n/a.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: To entice Google Inc. to build its ultra-high-speed fiber network there, Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas
City, Mo., offered the Internet company sweeteners including several free or discounted city services. Google is
building a fiber network in the Kansas City area that will offer pay-TV and Internet at extremely fast speeds of
one gigabit per second–a speed that the company boasts would allow a person to download a season of “30
Rock” in 30 seconds.
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full Text: To entice Google Inc. to build its ultra-high-speed fiber network there, Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas
City, Mo., offered the Internet company sweeteners including several free or discounted city services. Now,
Time Warner Cable Inc. and AT&T Inc., the incumbent Internet and TV providers in town, are angling to get the
same deal. Among the sweeteners granted Google by both cities are free office space and free power for
Google’s equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the
cities’ “assets and infrastructure”–including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities
are even providing Google a team of government employees “dedicated to the project.” For the past few months
Time Warner Cable has been negotiating with Kansas City, Kan.,to get a “parity agreement” granting it the
same concessions as Google got, the city and the company says. Time Warner Cable has already signed such
a deal with Kansas City, Mo. AT&T also has approached Kansas City, Mo., for the same deal, according to a
person familiar with the matter. “There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City,
Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the
field,” said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. “We’re happy to compete with Google, but we’d just
like an even playing field.” AT&T declined to comment on any negotiations but said, “It’s time to modernize our
industry’s rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition.” Google is building a
fiber network in the Kansas City area that will offer pay-TV and Internet at extremely fast speeds of one gigabit
per second–a speed that the company boasts would allow a person to download a season of “30 Rock” in 30
seconds. The Internet company chose Kansas City from more than 1,100 cities in the U.S. that had expressed
interest in having the Google Fibert network built in their areas. Google plans to start providing service in the
first neighborhood, Hanover Heights, later this month. The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local
governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct
“fiberhuts,” small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the
matter. The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles,
Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year–compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable
pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google. The cities are even helping Google
market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about
the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings. Several cable
executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in
neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone
companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets
they entered, regardless of demand. The concessions made by the Kansas cities raise an unnerving question
for existing pay-TV and Internet providers: whether other cities across the country could offer similarly sweet
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081703270?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Web%20Rivals%20Want%20What%20Google%20Got&title=Wall%20Street%20Journal%20(Online)&issn=&date=2012-10-02&volume=&issue=&spage=&author=Ramachandran,%20Shalini
deals that could encourage Google to expand its Fiber build-out. Jenna Wandres, a Google Fiber
spokeswoman, affirmed Monday that “right now we’re focused on Kansas City, but we hope to expand to other
communities in the future.” Google’s rights “appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon
or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past,” said Goldman
Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong. “We’re surprised Time Warner Cable hasn’t been more vocal in its opposition.”
Already, the situation has given the cities new bargaining power. The Kansas cities are asking Time Warner
Cable and AT&T to promise new, improved community services comparable to the ones Google has offered–
which include hundreds of free connections to government-picked locations–before they’ll give them a deal like
Google’s. As part of its new “parity” deal with Kansas City, Mo., Time Warner Cable said it will make certain
improvements in its services still to be finalized. The city has brought up speed and performance improvements
to the network, for instance, according to a person familiar with the matter. In exchange, the cable operator will
be getting Google’s discounts and a refund for the difference it paid the city in fees between March 2012 and
August, the new agreement shows. Similar discussions are under way with Kansas City, Kan. “Our goal is to
encourage innovation. Whether that is Google or an existing provider or someone else, we want to help this to
happen over and over again,” says Kansas City, Kan., Mayor Joe Reardon. Cable executives defend their
current Internet offerings by pointing out that most Web applications don’t yet require gigabit-speed Internet,
and the residential market isn’t demanding such offerings. As one top cable executive recently put it, Google
Fiber is just “an expensive PR stunt.” Google dismissed that criticism. Kansas City government officials also
disagree. “Google has completely disrupted [Internet service] business models,” says Rick Usher, assistant city
manager of Kansas City, Mo. “Our citizens are more aware than ever before of what’s available out there.”
Write to Shalini Ramachandran at Credit: By Shalini Ramachandran
Subject: Cities; Agreements; Competitive advantage; Internet
Company/organization: AT&T Inc; 517110, 517210; Time Warner Cable Inc; 517210, 517510
Publication title: Wall Street Journal (Online)
Pages: n/a
Publication year: 2012
Publication date: Oct 2, 2012
Year: 2012
Section: Tech
Publisher: Dow Jones&Company Inc
Place of publication: New York, N.Y.
Country of publication: United States
Journal subject: Business And Economics
Source type: Newspapers
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1081703270
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081703270?accountid=8289
Copyright: (c) 2012 Dow Jones&Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Last updated: 2012-10-03
Database: ABI/INFORM Global
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Ramachandran, S. (2012, Oct 02). Web rivals want what google got. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081703270?accountid=8289;
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Web+Rivals+Want+What+Goo
gle+Got&title=Wall+Street+Journal+%28Online%29&issn=&date=2012-10-
02&volume=&issue=&spage=&author=Ramachandran%2C+Shalini
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- Web Rivals Want What Google Got
Bibliography
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 12:13
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Joel Yutaka Sugano; Eduardo Jardel Veiga Gonçalves; Figueira, Mariane
Publication info: RAI 6. 3 (2009): 46.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Negotiations on the Internet have reached a huge volume. In this sense, new strategies and
competitive business models are crucial factors to consolidate a firm’s leadership position. In essence, a
company that offers its services to a broader number of users and complementary companies will have its
strategic position strengthened. Google has focused in achieving a leadership position through two distinct
services: the search engine and the advertisement service on the Web. Those services are the baseline to build
that company’s core competence, or in other words, they are its capacity to hold fresh data about the search
intentions of online users and to offer those users results that satisfy them. This paper demonstrates that
Google’s competence is reinforced as those services are used. As a consequence, new users will be attracted
to the company’s services which will feed its database, creating the so-called network effects. This paper
explains those relations.
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Publication title: RAI
Volume: 6
Issue: 3
First page: 46
Publication year: 2009
Publication date: 2009
Year: 2009
Publisher: Milton de Abreu Campanario
Place of publication: São Paulo
Country of publication: Brazil
Journal subject: Business And Economics–Management
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Case_Study
ProQuest document ID: 883071657
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/883071657?accountid=8289
Copyright: Copyright Milton de Abreu Campanario 2009
Last updated: 2011-10-17
Database: ABI/INFORM Global
http://search.proquest.com/docview/883071657?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=BUSINESS%20MODEL%20AND%20CORE%20COMPETENCE%20REFINEMENT:%20GOOGLE’S%20CASE%20STUDY&title=RAI&issn=&date=2009-09-01&volume=6&issue=3&spage=46&author=Joel%20Yutaka%20Sugano;Eduardo%20Jardel%20Veiga%20Gon%C3%A7alves;Figueira,%20Mariane
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Joel, Y. S., Eduardo Jardel, V. G., & Figueira, M. (2009). Business model and core competence refinement:
Google’s case study. RAI, 6(3), 46. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/883071657?accountid=8289;
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=BUSINESS+MODEL+AND+CO
RE+COMPETENCE+REFINEMENT%3A+GOOGLE%27S+CASE+STUDY&title=RAI&issn=&date=2009-09-
01&volume=6&issue=3&spage=46&author=Joel+Yutaka+Sugano%3BEduardo+Jardel+Veiga+Gon%C3%A7alv
es%3BFigueira%2C+Mariane
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- BUSINESS MODEL AND CORE COMPETENCE REFINEMENT: GOOGLE’S CASE STUDY
Bibliography
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 11:52
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Péter Jacsó
Publication info: Online Information Review 32. 1 (2008): 102-114.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar. This paper discusses the strengths and
weaknesses of Google Scholar. The Google Books project has given a massive and valuable boost to the
already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The dark side of the growth is that significant gaps remain
for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the
same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. This paper discusses the
strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full Text: Google Scholar had its debut in November 2004. Although it is still in beta version, it is worthwhile to
revisit its pros and cons, as changes have taken place in the past three years both in the content and the
software of Google Scholar – for better or worse. Its content has grown significantly [dash ]- courtesy of more
academic publishers and database hosts opening their digital vaults to allow the crawlers of Google Scholar to
collect data from and index the full-text of millions of articles from academic journal collections and scholarly
repositories of preprints and reprints. The Google Books project also has given a massive and valuable boost to
the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The dark side of the growth is that significant gaps
remained for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records
for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. While the regular
Google service does an impressive job with mostly unstructured web pages, the software of Google Scholar
keeps doing a very poor job with the highly structured and tagged scholarly documents. It still has serious
deficiencies with basic search operations, does not have any sort options (beyond the questionable relevance
ranking). It recklessly offers filtering features by data elements, which are present only in a very small fraction of
the records (such as broad subject categories) and/or are often absent and incorrect in Google Scholar even if
they are present correctly in the source items. These include nonexistent author names, which turn out to be
section names, subtitles, or any part of the text, including menu option text which has nothing to do with the
document or its author. This makes “F. Password” not only the most productive, but also a very highly cited
author. Page numbers, the first or second segment of an ISSN, or any other four-digit numbers are often
interpreted by Google Scholar as publication years due to “artificial unintelligence”. As a consequence, Google
Scholar has a disappointing performance in matching citing and cited items; its hit counts and citation counts
remain highly inflated, defying the most basic plausibility concepts when reporting about documents from the
1990s citing papers to be published in 2008, 2009 or even later in the twenty-first century. In spite of the
appalling deficiencies and shoddiness of its software the free Google Scholar service is of great help in the
resource discovery process and can often lead users to the primary documents in their library in print or digital
format and/or to open access versions of papers which otherwise would cost more than $30-$40 each through
document delivery services. Google Scholar can act at the minimum as a free, huge and diverse
multidisciplinary I/A database or a federated search engine with limited software capabilities, but with the superb
bonus of searching incredibly rapidly the full-text of several million source documents. However, using it for
bibliometric and scientometric evaluation, comparison and ranking purposes can produce very unscholarly
measures and indicators of scholarly productivity and impact. Background and literature On the third
anniversary of Google Scholar I give a summary of the pros and cons of Google Scholar, focusing on the
http://search.proquest.com/docview/194510613?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Google%20Scholar%20revisited&title=Online%20Information%20Review&issn=14684527&date=2008-01-01&volume=32&issue=1&spage=102&author=P%C3%A9ter%20Jacs%C3%B3
increasingly valuable content and on the decreasingly satisfactory software features which must befuddle
searchers and ought to be addressed by the developers. I discuss here Google Scholar from the perspective of
some of the traditional database evaluation criteria that have been used for decades ([25] Jacsó, 1998). I
complement this paper with an unusually long bibliography of some of the most relevant English-language
articles by competent information professionals. For many of the citations I provide the URL of an open access
preprint or reprint version, or of the original version published in an open access journal, to offer readers
convenient access to the papers and understand the opinion of the authors. Re-reading these papers in
preparation for this review was a great pleasure, even when my opinion did not agree with that of the reviewers.
The balance of pro and con arguments and evidentiary materials presented by competent information
professionals has been rewarding and has motivated my creation of this bibliography. It does not include
references to papers which are dedicated to the citation counts of articles as presented by Google Scholar.
These will be provided in follow-up papers which discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using Scopus, Web
of Science and Google Scholar to determine the Hirsch-index and derivative indexes for measuring and
comparing research output quantitatively. After the launch of Google Scholar it received much attention, just as
anything does that relates to Google, Inc. Within the first few months of its debut, there were a number of
reviews in open access web columns ([44] Price, 2004; [26] Jacsó, 2004; [15] Goodman, 2004; [11] Gardner
and Eng, 2005; [1] Abram, 2005; [52] Tenopir, 2005), and three web blogs were launched dedicated to Google
Scholar ([50] Sondemann, 2005; [13] Giustini, 2005), or partially dedicated ([23] Iselid, 2006). These were
followed by reviews in traditional publications ([27] Jacsó, 2005a; [35] Myhill, 2005; [40] Notess, 2005, [42]
O’Leary, 2005, [12] Giustini and Barsky, 2005; [39] Noruzi, 2005; [2] Adlington and Benda, 2006; [6] Cathcart
and Roberts, 2006) focussing on the content and software aspects of Google Scholar. These were well
complemented by a number of essays, editorials and surveys pondering the acceptance, use, promotion and
“domestication” of Google Scholar as one of the endorsed research tools for students and faculty in academic
institutions ([30] Kesselman and Watsen, 2005; [45] Price, 2005; [3] Anderson, 2006; [16] Gorman, 2006; [34]
Mullen and Hartman, 2006; [10] Friend, 2006; [18] Hamaker and Spry, 2006; [59] York, 2006; [21] Helms-Park
et al. , 2007; [48] Schmidt, 2007; [51] Taylor, 2007). As Google Scholar became more intensively used, several
research papers started to put it into context by comparing Google Scholar’s performance with a single
database ([49] Schultz, 2007), federated search engines ([9] Felter, 2005; [12] Giustini and Barsky, 2005; [7]
Chen, 2006; [47] Sadeh, 2006; [8] Donlan and Cooke, 2006; [20] Haya et al. , 2007; [22] Herrera, 2007),
citation-enhanced databases such as Web of Science and/or Scopus ([4] Bauer and Bakkalbasi, 2005; [28]
Jacsó, 2005b; [29] Jacsó, 2005c; [58] Yang and Meho, 2006; [38] Norris and Oppenheim, 2007), or with a mix
of these and traditional scholarly indexing/abstracting databases ([56] White, 2006). There is increasing
specialisation in researching Google Scholar, applying the traditional database evaluation criteria such as size,
timeliness, source type and especially breadth of journal coverage ([24] Jacsó, 1997) in a consistent manner in
the context of a very non-traditional database which piggybacks on other sources rather than creating its own
([57] Wleklinksi, 2005; [53] Vine, 2005; [54] Vine, 2006; [36] Neuhaus et al. , 2006; [43] Pomerantz, 2006; [56]
White, 2006; [33] Mayr and Walter, 2007; [55] Walters, 2007). The recent incorporation of books in Google
Scholar from Google Book Search (which after a poor debut with deficient software features, turned around and
introduced within a month far more sophisticated software than Google Scholar in three years), spawned useful
research ([19] Hauer, 2006; [31] Lackie, 2006; [14] Goldeman and Connolly, 2007), as did the only good new
software feature of Google Scholar which led users to the full-text digital source document in the users’ library
through Open-URL resolvers ([17] Grogg and Ferguson, 2005; [41] O’Hara, 2007; [32] Lagace and Chisman,
2007). There is one additional research area where Google Scholar will play an important role: its use for
bibliometric and scientometric evaluation of the performance of researchers, which is such a complex issue that
it deserves to be discussed in a separate paper, with its own rich set of references. The pros Most of the pros
relate to the content part of Google Scholar, from different angles, including coverage, variety in source and
journal base, size and currency. Journal coverage The source base of Google Scholar has been considerably
enhanced since its debut, as every scholarly publisher wants to be a part of the Google universe. The source
base also increased in quality through full-text indexing of thousands of additional academic journals of
importance from the sites of the publishers, rather than just indexing bibliographic data and abstract from I/A
databases. The two most important journal publishers that started to co-operate with Google Scholar are
Elsevier and the American Chemical Society. Although only a tiny proportion of these publishers’ digital
collections (Elsevier’s 7 million items and the ACS’s 0.75 million items) have been indexed so far by Google
Scholar, their shares are expected to increase rapidly once the Google Scholar spiders are sent to their routes.
Book coverage It was an excellent idea to add book records to Google Scholar, primarily from the Google
Books Project. It is a huge advantage, as books are barely present even as an indexing/abstracting record, let
alone as a completely indexed, full-text item (for searching, not viewing) in most of the other multidisciplinary
mega-databases (except for the also free and outstanding Amazon.com site). In preparing for a tutorial session
in Vietnam, it was impressive to find 27 books in Google Scholar, each of which had numerous passages about
or references to the so-called “scholar gentry class”. This is the type of casual digital book use that the late
Frederick Kilgour, the founder of OCLC envisioned more than 20 years ago, when he was already in his early
70s. Geographic and language coverage The geographic and language coverage of Google Scholar is also
impressive and genuine. It is a typical limitation of even the subscription-based scholarly databases that they
often almost exclusively cover only anglophone sources, predominantly published in the USA, UK, Australia and
Canada (in which case francophone documents are also covered). I do not blame the commercial database
publishers for this, as they were not created on the same principles as the UN or UNESCO. They have to spend
their money on processing documents which are of interest to and understandable by the majority of scholars,
their primary customers. The Google Scholar service does not have the ever-increasing costs of subscription
and human processing of the scholarly print publications. It has free access to practically any scholarly digital
document collection it wants, and wisely has decided to index (by software) important Spanish, Portuguese,
German, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Russian language collections of academic works. While the latter four
are of no help to me, the former three are and are worth the extra mental effort to read in the native language,
as there are several sources in my areas of specialisation where researchers in Germany, Austria, the Iberian
peninsula, Central and South America (especially Brazil), that publish only in German, Spanish and Portuguese.
I have avoided referring to the actual size of Google Scholar and its subsets, as it is impossible to determine a
realistic number, or even estimate the number of records in the database, or in the Canadian subset or the
language subsets. Digital repositories The coverage of digital repositories – even if far from complete – is already
a great asset, especially for physics, astrophysics, medicine, economics and computer and information sciences
and technology. But the use of such full-text repositories still could be significantly improved. For example, only
about a quarter of the open access PubMed Central (PMC) items are directly available in Google Scholar. True,
there are records in Google Scholar – from other sources, such as cababstractsplus.org – for many more of the
620,000 full text documents deposited in PMC. It would, however, be essential to index the source documents
and give them priority in displaying the result list clearly, marking them as open access, instead of giving
undeserved prominence to the British Library document delivery service (BL Direct), which is more than happy
to charge for document delivery even when the open access paper is just a click away from the user. Just as
quickly as Google Scholar can determine whether a journal is available for article delivery through the British
Library, it could determine whether it is available free of charge from runs of open access issues of the journal.
The same is true for the open access full-text subset of the National Transportation Library (which has, for
example, more than 100 documents about transport-related terrorism). In sharp contrast Google Scholar has
only a dozen source documents indexed and made available from that site. While praising the broad content
coverage of Google Scholar, it must be noted that there are still huge gaps in the full-text indexing of the most
important serial publications as mentioned in the original review ([27] Jacsó, 2005a). For example, less than 17
per cent of the 430,500 documents at the nature.com web site were indexed by Google Scholar directly from
that site (which includes not only Nature magazine but also many other journals of the Nature Publishing
Group). True, many more than 17 per cent of them have a record in Google Scholar, but many of these are just
citation records with minimal information. Indexing/abstracting records It is good that there are millions of
records from good indexing/abstracting databases for documents for which digital full text is not yet available.
However, Google Scholar should have used the unique privilege granted by thousands of scholarly publishers
of gaining permission to crawl and index the full text of the primary documents, rather than just the ersatz
records, often redundantly through several indexing/abstracting databases. Size I usually start the content
review by determining the size of the database, and its distinct subsets. It is essential for researchers to know
how many records are in Google Scholar in total, and/or in, say, English or Spanish, which journals are covered
from what publishers for what time span, but its developers “take the Fifth” when asked about it or about any
factual features of the database (such as the number of journals, publishers, foreign language materials,
articles, conference papers, reports, books covered). My various “sizing up” queries do not work, as the results
are so absurd and/or capricious that it would be irresponsible to report them. The only good new features in the
software are the Library Links and Library Search options. These inform users whether their library offers
access to the document in question. If your library signed up (and provided data about its digital journal
holdings) to Google Scholar this would work automatically (if Google Scholar is invoked from the library or a
computer with authenticated IP address, or remotely through the library, after the appropriate login process).
The Library Search option for books works if the library is an OCLC member. It is to be noted that the [BOOK]
label in the Google Scholar result lists often refers to a review of, or blurb about, the book rather than the book
itself. The cons Practically all the major negative traits of Google Scholar are caused by or relate to software
issues. As indicated above, it is impossible even to guess the size of the database because of elementary
problems with the software. Innumeracy It speaks volumes about the limitations of the software that when using
the query term
billion records, whether you are using it with or without the + sign or surround it by double quotation marks (as it
is supposed to be a stop word without these signs, but apparently it is not). I do not believe this hit count to be
true, but that is not the point here (see Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). If you add (out of curiosity)
the letter “a” in an OR relationship, the result set should increase by picking up records for foreign language
source documents which use the letter a as the definite article and/or a preposition. In the extreme case, if all
anglophone records had the letter “a” as the indefinite article or part of terms such a “blood type A”, “personality
A”, “grade A”, the number of hits would not increase. But in Google Scholar the OR operator decreases the
result set to less than 1 per cent of the original set and makes George Boole turn over in his grave. The regular
Google search engine does not take part in this nonsense. Some may feel lucky (rather than befuddled) that,
although both search terms were purportedly excluded from the search (as the message shows), Google
Scholar still could provide with nearly 14 million hits – without using the + sign or the double quotation mark.
Actually, it shows only 1,000 hits at most for any query, so it can claim any number above 1,000 without the
burden of proof. If gamblers could bluff in casinos without the burden of showing their cards for the blackjack
dealer, there would be many more instant millionaires than at the GooglePlex (see Figure 2 [Figure omitted.
See Article Image.]). This has been a problem from the beginning. The enhancement of the content has not
been matched by improvements in the software. The software does not reflect at all, for example, the specialties
of the fully-indexed books. The template in the advanced mode still refers to articles written by, articles
published in, articles published between, and articles in subject areas. As for subject areas, they should not be
used as filters. When entering the search for any documents with the word “Vietnam” in the title, and the radio
button for all subject areas turned on, Google Scholar reports 135,000 hits, an impressively high number. When
sending the query through the advanced template, Google Scholar inserts two spaces in front of the search
term. If you change it to one, the result will go up to 137,000; if you eliminate both spaces the result set will
revert to 135,000 items. This is not true for field-specific searches, such as author, title, journal name. This will
be the least enigmatic part of the search process, thanks to the weird logic of Google Scholar (see Figure 3
[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Selecting one checkbox at a time for filtering by the first subject group,
then the second, the third, etc. will produce cumulative subsets. After the last subject group the aggregate of the
seven subject categories will produce a set of 20,500 records. This is less than 15 per cent of the original set,
meaning that 85 per cent of the items for this topic are not assigned to any of the subject groups (see Figure 4
[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Much more surprisingly, when the query is expanded by adding the word
“Vietnamese” to the query without any filtering, the result will shrink to 46,100 items (34 per cent of the single-
word query) (see Figure 5 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). More oddly, restricting the search to the seven
listed subject groups will increase the result set to 105,000. Activating the “Search in All Subject Areas” radio
button will report a set size of 43,200 (not shown here because any logic breaks down here, and only the first
1,000 items will be listed by Google Scholar anyhow) (see Figure 6 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). The
publication year limiters behave in an equally odd way. This is madness, and there is no method to it. Limiting
the initial set with “Vietnam” in the title to the publication year range 1435-2008, to accommodate the first
possible English language transliteration of the Vietnamese word for the name of the country to publications
which will be published the next year (I write this in mid-November, 2007) yields 20,200 hits. Limiting the search
to 1960-2008, i.e. to a more than 500 years shorter time span, increases the set to 20,600 items. The fact that
many records in any sample would not have the publication year data element, or Google Scholar would not
recognise it even when it is right under its nose, does not justify this weird logic. There is not a word about this
serious limitation in the cheery help file (see Figure 7 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Illiteracy These were
problems of innumeracy, but there are many problems that can be classified as problems of illiteracy in the
software. When the two come together in certain searches the chaos becomes serious. Google Scholar has
lethal deficiencies in distinguishing author names from other parts of the text using its parsing algorithm.
Apparently the developers are not aware of it or do not care about it. After seeing left and right author names
like F. Password, V. Findings, N. Vietnam, S. Vietnam, it was surprising to notice one of the new software
features of Google Scholar, the cluster of authors related to the user’s query as explained in the help file. My
test search shows the suggested authors from a set of purportedly 2,9110,000 records on the topic of risk factor
evaluation with the following names: P Population, R Evaluation, M Data, R Findings and M Results. Google
Scholar flaunts its software deficiencies and does not provide any hints about the limitation of the software (see
Figure 8 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). The extent of wrong author names is well above hundreds of
thousands and often these results deprive the real authors from receiving credit for some of their paper
(including highly cited papers) and thus prevent them from receiving a decent h-index. The upcoming issues will
look at the theory and the practice of determining the h-index in general, and in Google Scholar, Scopus and
Web of Science in particular. Information Outlook D-Lib Magazine Google Scholar Blog Google Scholar vs. Real
Scholarship One Entry to Research Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Library and
Information Science Research Online Information Review Current Science Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Google Scholar Documentation and Large PDF Files Search Engine Journal High Energy Physics Libraries
Webzine Journal of the Medical Library Association Library Journal Journal of Medical Library Association New
Zealand Library &Information Management Journal Proceedings of the 69th Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST) References 1. Abram, S. (2005), “Google Scholar: thin
edge of the wedge?”, , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 44-6, available at:
www.sirsi.com/Pdfs/Company/Abram/StephenAbram_GoogleScholarThinEdge .
2. Adlington, J. and Benda, C. (2006), “Checking under the hood: evaluating Google scholar for reference use”,
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 135-48.
3. Anderson, R. (2006), “The (uncertain) future of libraries in a Google world: sounding an alarm”, Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 29-36.
4. Bauer, K. and Bakkalbasi, N. (2005), “An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication
environment”, , Vol. 11 No. 9, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html.
6. Cathcart, R. and Roberts, A. (2006), “Evaluating Google scholar as a tool for information literacy”, Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 167-76.
7. Chen, X. (2006), “MetaLib, WebFeat, and Google: the strengths and weaknesses of federated search
engines compared with Google”, Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 413-27.
8. Donlan, R. and Cooke, R. (2006), “Running with the devil: accessing library-licensed full text holdings through
Google Scholar”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 149-57.
9. Felter, L.M. (2005), “The better mousetrap: Google Scholar”, Scirus, and the Scholarly Search Revolution,
Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 43-8.
10. Friend, F.J. (2006), “Google Scholar: potentially good for users of academic information”, Journal of
Electronic Publishing, Vol. 9, p. 1.
11. Gardner, S. and Eng, S. (2005), “Gaga over GoogleScholar in the social sciences”, Library Hi Tech News,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 42-5.
12. Giustini, D. and Barsky, E. (2005), “A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and
recommendations”, Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 85-9.
13. Giustini, D. (2005), , available at: http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/.
14. Golderman, G. and Connolly, B. (2007), “Between the book covers: going beyond OPAC keyword searching
with the deep linking capabilities of Google Scholar and Google Book Search”, Journal of Internet Cataloging,
Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 17-24.
15. Goodman, A. (2004), , available at: www.traffick.com/2004/11/google-scholar-vs-real-scholarship.asp.
16. Gorman, G.E. (2006), “Giving way to Google”, Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 97-9.
17. Grogg, J.E. and Ferguson, C.L. (2005), “OpenURL linking with Google Scholar”, Searcher, Vol. 13 No. 9,
pp. 39-46.
18. Hamaker, C. and Spry, B. (2006), “Key issues – Google Scholar”, Serials, pp. 9-11.
19. Hauer, M. (2006), “Retrieval quality of library catalogues and new concepts: a comparison”, Information
Services and Use, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 241-8.
20. Haya, G., Nygren, E. and Widmark, W. (2007), “Metalib and Google Scholar: a user study”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 365-75.
21. Helms-Park, R., Radia, P. and Stapleton, P. (2007), “A preliminary assessment of Google Scholar as a
source of EAP students’ research materials”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
22. Herrera, G. (2007), “MetaSearching and beyond: implementation experiences and advice from an academic
library”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 44-52.
23. Iselid, L. (2006), , available at: http://oneentry.wordpress.com/.
24. Jacsó, P. (1997), “Content evaluation of databases”, , Vol. 32, pp. 231-67, available at:
www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-content-arist .
25. Jacsó, P. (1998), “Analyzing the journal coverage of abstracting/indexing databases at variable aggregate
and analytic levels”, , Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 133-151, available at: www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-analyzing .
26. Jacsó, P. (2004), “Google Scholar beta”, available at: www.gale.com/servlet/
HTMLFileServlet?imprint=9999®ion=7&fileName=/reference/archive/200412/googlescholar.html.
27. Jacsó, P. (2005a), “Google Scholar: the pros and the cons”, , Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 208-14, available at:
www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-google-scholar-pros-and-cons .
28. Jacsó, P. (2005b), “As we may search – comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and
Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases”, , Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 1537-47, available at:
www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537 .
29. Jacsó, P. (2005c), “Comparison and analysis of the citedness scores in Web of Science and Google
Scholar”, , Vol. 3815, pp. 360-9, available at: www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-comparison-analysis-of-citedness .
30. Kesselman, M. and Watsen, S.B. (2005), “Google Scholar and libraries: point/counterpoint”, Reference
Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380-7.
31. Lackie, R.J. (2006), “Google’s print and scholar initiatives: the value of and impact on libraries and
information services”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 57-70.
32. Lagace, N. and Chisman, J.K. (2007), “How did we ever manage without the OpenURL?”, Serials Librarian,
Vol. 52 Nos 1-2, pp. 211-22.
33. Mayr, P. and Walter, A. (2007), “An exploratory study of Google Scholar”, Online Information Review, Vol.
31 No. 6, pp. 814-30.
34. Mullen, L.B. and Hartman, K.A. (2006), “Google Scholar and the library web site: the early response by ARL
libraries”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-22.
35. Myhill, M. (2005), “Google Scholar”, Charleston Advisor, Vol. 6 No. 4.
36. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A. and Wrede, C. (2006), “The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: an
empirical study”, Portal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 127-41.
38. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2007), “Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the
social sciences’ literature”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-9.
39. Noruzi, A. (2005), “Google Scholar: the new generation of citation indexes”, Libri, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 170-80.
40. Notess, G.R. (2005), “Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 39-
41.
41. O’Hara, L.H. (2007), “L.H. Providing access to electronic journals in academic libraries: a general survey”,
Serials Librarian, Vol. 51 Nos 3/4, pp. 119-28.
42. O’Leary, M. (2005), “Google Scholar: what’s in it for you?”, Information Today, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 35-9.
43. Pomerantz, J. (2006), “Google Scholar and 100 per cent availability of information”, Information Technology
and Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 52-6.
44. Price, G. (2004), , available at: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/041201-105511.
45. Price, G. (2005), “Google Scholar is now open to all libraries”, , available at:
www.searchenginejournal.com/oogle-scholar-is-now-open-to-all-libraries/1694/.
47. Sadeh, T. (2006), “Google Scholar versus metasearch systems”, , No. 12, available at:
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/12/papers/1/.
48. Schmidt, J. (2007), “Promoting library services in a Google world”, Library Management, Vol. 28 Nos 6/7,
pp. 337-46.
49. Schultz, M. (2007), “Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar”, , Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 442-5,
available at: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2000776.
50. Sondemann, T.J. (2005), “On Google Scholar [blog]”, available at: http://schoogle.blogspot.com/.
51. Taylor, S. (2007), “Google scholar – friend or foe?”, Interlending and Document Supply, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 4-
6.
52. Tenopir, C. (2005) Vol. 32, “Google in the academic library: undergraduates may find all they want on
Google Scholar”, , 1 February, p. 32, available at: www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA498868.html.
53. Vine, R. (2005), “Google Scholar is a full year late indexing Pubmed content SiteLines”, available at:
www.workingfaster.com/sitelines/archives/2005_02.html#000282.
54. Vine, R. (2006), “Google Scholar”, , Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 97-9, available at:
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1324783.
55. Walters, W.H. (2007), “Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field”, Information Processing and
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 1121-32.
56. White, B. (2006), “Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source”, , Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 11-24, available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/7657.
57. Wleklinski, J.M. (2005), “Studying Google Scholar: wall to wall coverage?”, Online, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 22-6.
58. Yang, K. and Meho, L.I. (2006), “Citation analysis: a comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of
Science”, , Vol. 43, available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00008121/01/Yang_citation .
59. York, M.C. (2006), “Calling the scholars home: Google Scholar as a tool for rediscovering the academic
library”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 117-33.
Further Reading 5. Callicott, B. and Vaughn, D. (2006), “Google Scholar vs. library scholar: testing the
performance of Schoogle”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 Nos 3-4, pp. 71-88.
37. Norris, B.P. (2006), “Google: its impact on the library”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 9-11.
46. Robinson, M.L. and Wusteman, J. (2007), “Putting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study”,
Program, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 71-80.
AuthorAffiliation Péter Jacsó, University of Hawaii, Hawaii, USA Illustration Figure 1: Hit count for the definite
English article Figure 2: Unorthodox Boolean OR which reduces the original set by 99 per cent Figure 3: Search
for Vietnam in the title in all subject areas Figure 4: Selecting each listed categories the set decreases by 85
percent Figure 5: Expanding the query will drastically shrink the result set Figure 6: Restricting the query to
predefined subject categories will more than double the set Figure 7: The shorter the time span the higher the
hit count Figure 8: Odd list of recommended authors in the side bar, and a cheery help file
Subject: Search engines; Software; Quality
Location: United States–US
Company/organization: Google Inc; 518112
Classification: 8331: Internet services industry, 5240: Software&systems, 9190: United States, 5320: Quality
control
Publication title: Online Information Review
Volume: 32
Issue: 1
Pages: 102-114
Publication year: 2008
Publication date: 2008
Year: 2008
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited
Place of publication: Bradford
Country of publication: United Kingdom
Journal subject: Computers–Computer Networks
ISSN: 14684527
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: Photographs;References
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010
ProQuest document ID: 194510613
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/194510613?accountid=8289
Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2008
Last updated: 2010-06-05
Database: ProQuest Research Library,ABI/INFORM Global
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Péter Jacsó. (2008). Google scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102-114. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- Google Scholar revisited
Bibliography
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 11:53
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Neuhaus, Chris; Neuhaus, Ellen; Asher, Alan; Wrede, Clint
Publication info: Portal : Libraries and the Academy 6. 2 (Apr 2006): 127-141.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: The introduction of Google Scholar in November 2004 was accompanied by fanfare, skepticism, and
numerous questions about the scope and coverage of this database. Nearly one year after its inception, many
of these questions remain unanswered. This study compares the contents of 47 different databases with that of
Google Scholar. Included in this investigation are tests for Google Scholar publication date and publication
language bias, as well as a study of upload frequency. Tests show Google Scholar’s current strengths to be
coverage of science and medical databases, open access databases, and single publisher databases. Current
weaknesses include lack of coverage of social science and humanities databases and an English language
bias. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full Text: Headnote abstract: The introduction of Google Scholar in November 2004 was accompanied by
fanfare, skepticism, and numerous questions about the scope and coverage of this database. Nearly one year
after its inception, many of these questions remain unanswered. This study compares the contents of 47
different databases with that of Google Scholar. Included in this investigation are tests for Google Scholar
publication date and publication language bias, as well as a study of upload frequency. Tests show Google
Scholar’s current strengths to be coverage of science and medical databases, open access databases, and
single publisher databases. Current weaknesses include lack of coverage of social science and humanities
databases and an English language bias. Introduction In November 2004, Google officially launched Google
Scholar and entered the highstakes world of research databases.1 The hype and hubbub surrounding this
event were tremendous but understandable, considering the player involved.2 Google, such a monolithic
Internet power, is synonymous in the minds of so many with the Internet. Indeed, one does not find information,
one “Googles” it. With this overwhelming name recognition, a large clientele, and a tradition of successful spin-
offs such as Froogle and Google Image Search, Google should have little difficulty persuading many to try its
new “scholarly paper” search engine. The current simplicity of Google Scholar, that single search box under the
large and now so familiar logo, will attract scholars who are discouraged by the complexity and diversity of the
many databases at their disposal. As a number of authors have pointed out, Google Scholar will appeal to
researchers who already use Google as part of their information-seeking routine.3 Google Scholar’s specific link
resolution, developed by Google Scholar and major library vendors, now connects Google Scholar results with
the online resources of a researcher’s library.4 Links to library-owned full text should please university
researchers and possibly even university librarians. Though only in the beta testing phase of its existence,
Google Scholar has attracted significant attention. Whether Google Scholar can maintain a faithful following in
the years to come will depend on the ability of this search engine to deliver sufficient quantities of relevant and
up-to-date research information. Despite the growing popularity of Google Scholar, very little is known about the
nature of its contents. How often is this database updated? Does Google Scholar have particular disciplinary
strengths and weaknesses? How does the content of Google Scholar compare with that of other databases? To
gain some insight concerning these mysteries, researchers at the University of Northern Iowa performed a
series of empirical tests to gauge the relative coverage of scholarly journal articles by Google Scholar and other
well-established databases. This study, conducted during the summer of 2005, compared the contents of 47
databases to Google Scholar. Random samples of database entries were generated for each of the 47
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216166819?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=The%20Depth%20and%20Breadth%20of%20Google%20Scholar:%20An%20Empirical%20Study&title=Portal%20:%20Libraries%20and%20the%20Academy&issn=15312542&date=2006-04-01&volume=6&issue=2&spage=127&author=Neuhaus,%20Chris;Neuhaus,%20Ellen;Asher,%20Alan;Wrede,%20Clint
databases, and each entry was tested for coverage within Google Scholar. The databases were grouped into
broad disciplines, and the average coverage by Google Scholar of each discipline was then also calculated.
Related studies were conducted with the database PsycINFO to measure whether Google Scholar coverage of
scholarly literature varied with language of publication or date of publication. Using the databases PubMed and
BioMed Central, an additional facet of this project looked at the upload rate of Google Scholar. Background and
Literature Review What does Google Scholar point to, cover, and index? These questions, as numerous
authors have noted, have neither been made clear by Google Scholar nor by its creator Anurag Acharya.5 In
“Google Scholar: A Source for Clinicians?” Jim Henderson lauded Google Scholar for its ability to return ranked
results and to provide, free of charge, citation tracking for each of these results. Yet Henderson expressed
concerns about Google Scholar’s ability to provide up-to-date citations for rapidly evolving medical research and
noted a citation bias that favored older literature. Henderson also warned of the inability of Google Scholar to
harvest all “deep Web” data found in important health and medical databases such as CINAHL and PsycINFO.6
Peter Jacso of the University of Hawaii has conducted the most thorough of the published investigations of
Google Scholar to date. Jacso’s Web site, side-by-side2 Native Search Engines vs. Google Scholar, allows the
curious to simultaneously compare the search engines of the publishers Annual Reviews, Blackwell, Institute of
Physics, Nature Publishing Group, and Wiley InterScience with that of Google Scholar on any topic of choice.7
Jacso lists a number of positives and negatives for this new Google search engine in his many columns on
Google Scholar. Google Scholar provides free access to the citations and abstracts of millions of articles,
provides a very simple interface, and returns results ranked by relevancy.8 Jacso suggests that Google Scholar
could potentially offer a citation search alternative to Web of Science and Scopus, a real plus for libraries with
small and shrinking budgets. However, he points out that currently Google Scholar citation search results are
inflated, that Google Scholar includes significant numbers of non-scholarly items, and that the simple search
interface that already attracts so many to Google lacks sophisticated search mechanisms, such as journal or
author browsing, truncation, and proximity searching, that are often critical to retrieving a specific article. Finally,
Jacso notes that, as of mid-April 2005, there was a six-month delay in updates to the Google Scholar
database.9 Martin Myhill, writing a product review for the Charleston Advisor in April 2005, provided the
following summary of Google Scholar: The vast majority of academic literature is found in the “hidden Web.”
While Google Scholar has made valiant attempts to include a range of resources in this category, it is apparent
that coverage leans heavily on the sciences, rarely includes all the offerings even from partner publishers, and
misses many of the quality resources which are more usually accessible to scholars through institutional
subscriptions.10 Methodology In contrast to Jacso’s comparison of relative yields per search query, this study
compared the contents of databases to the contents of Google Scholar. Samples of 50 randomly selected titles
were drawn from a given database. An electronic random number generator created by Random.org, http: /
/www.random.org/nform.html, was used to generate all random numbers used in the study. The randomly
selected titles were generated using one of the following methods: 1. To select samples from databases that
contained records with sequential identification numbers, random numbers were generated from the lowest to
the highest record identification number. 2. To select samples for those databases that displayed their entire
contents when queried (for example, py>1600 for SilverPlatter databases), random numbers were generated
from the lowest to the highest entry value. 3. To select samples from databases that did not display entire
contents, did not allow for database record identification searching, and did not contain records with sequential
identification numbers, two random numbers from one to 100 were selected and used together in a Boolean
“and” keyword search of the database. Random stratified sampling was then deployed to select titles from the
results generated by this method. Whenever possible, database searches were performed while limiting the
output of a given database to journal articles or scholarly articles as identified by that database. Once a random
sample of articles had been identified from a given database, the titles from this sample were then individually
queried in Google Scholar using the following steps: 1. Titles were entered into Google Scholar as a phrase
search (with quotations). 2. If this method failed to produce a hit, punctuation, symbols, formulas, and special
scripts were removed, and the remaining segments of the title were searched as phrases (with quotations). 3. If
the second step also failed to produce a hit, a title segment and the last name of one or more of the authors
were searched. 4. If this too failed, a title segment and the name of the publication were searched. If steps one
or two produced more than 10 results, the Google Scholar search was repeated with the last name of one or
more of the authors. If the database record in question contained a non-English title, both the original foreign
language title and the English translation provided by the database were searched in Google Scholar. The
fraction of sample titles that appeared in Google Scholar was then reported as a percentage of the Google
Scholar coverage for that database. A total of 47 databases covering a variety of subjects was sampled over a
four-month period from April through July 2005. Databases were assigned to a discipline category based on the
relative relevance to instruction and research conducted within a given college at the University of Northern
Iowa. The discipline categories created for this study were business, education, humanities, science and
medicine, and social science. Those databases that offered content relevant to multiple colleges and disciplines
were assigned to the multidisciplinary category. Methodology for Publication Date and Publication Language
Studies Related studies were conducted to determine whether Google Scholar coverage of a given database
varied by date of publication or by language of publication. The decision was made to choose a database with a
high degree of variability in Google Scholar coverage. The researchers at the University of Northern Iowa
believed biases in coverage would be most perceptible in databases in which a given record stood roughly a
50-50 chance of appearing in Google Scholar. Thus, PsycINFO was chosen for these studies based on the
preliminary 50-item random sample, which showed the Google Scholar coverage of records found in PsycINFO
to be 48 percent. For the publication date study, a random sample of titles from PsycINFO was identified and
then searched in Google Scholar for three publication years-2004, 2000, and 1990. Database searches were
limited both to the particular publication year and to journal articles. The query (py=2004) and ((DT:PSYI =
JOURNAL) or (DT:PSYI = PEER-REVIEWED-JOURNAL)) was used to generate the population of PsycINFO
titles published in 2004, and similar queries were used to generate populations for publication dates 2000 and
1990. Random numbers were generated from one to the value of the largest entry using the random number
generator located at Random.org. Four hundred titles were randomly selected for each publication year. Each
title was then queried in Google Scholar. For the publication language study, Google Scholar coverage of
PsycINFO articles published in English was compared to coverage of PsycINFO articles published in non-
English languages. The query (py>1700) and ((DT:PSYI = JOURNAL) or (DT:PSYI = PEER-REVIEWED-
JOURNAL)) and la=english was used to generate the population of PsycINFO English language titles. The
query (py>1700) and ((DT.PSYI = JOURNAL) or (DT.PSYI = PEER-REVIEWED-JOURNAL)) not la=english
generated the population of PsycINFO non-English language titles. Random numbers were generated from one
to the value of the largest PsycINFO entry using the random number generator located at Random.org. Four
hundred English language titles and 400 non-English language titles were then randomly selected from
PsycINFO. Each title was then queried in Google Scholar. Methodology for Google Scholar Upload Frequency
Study From late June through July, studies were also conducted to measure the rate of Google Scholar upload
for the databases BioMed Central and PubMed, both chosen based on their high degree of Google Scholar
coverage. Initial tests indicated that PubMed appeared to be covered 100 percent by Google Scholar, whereas
tests showed Google Scholar coverage of BioMed Central to be 94 percent. Upon further investigation, notable
exclusions were found from both these databases for those most recent records that had yet to be loaded in
Google Scholar. The information in each of these databases is arrayed quite differently, so for each database a
different approach was taken to determine upload frequency. For BioMed Central, which lists the load date on
each item, successive comparisons of BioMed Central with Google Scholar were used to zero in on a “last entry
date” for BioMed Central material appearing in Google Scholar. Testing began on June 27, 2005, and at this
time no BioMed Central records with a load date after April 1, 2005 were found in Google Scholar. Thus, at the
inception of this testing, at least a three-month time lag existed for uploading the information that appeared in
BioMed Central Scholar into Google. Regular tests were conducted to monitor Google Scholar coverage for 35
randomly chosen BioMed Central records with load dates ranging from April 2, 2005 to June 21, 2005. Tests to
monitor the uploading of these samples into Google Scholar were conducted on June 27, June 30, July 7, July
18, and July 26,2005. PubMed assigns each item record a sequential accession number. However, there were
no apparent load dates, only publication dates (and many of these dates were somewhat vague, with only the
year of publication being listed). Successive approximation was used to determine both the largest (most
recent) accession number in PubMed (which was 15981319 on June 28) and the last (most recent) item in
PubMed that also appeared in Google Scholar, in this case 15751150, though one outlier, 15751400, out of a
sample size of 30 was also shown to be indexed by Google Scholar. Regular tests were also conducted to
monitor Google Scholar coverage for the 30 randomly chosen PubMed records ranging from accession number
15751153 to 15790000. Tests to monitor the uploading of these samples into Google Scholar were conducted
on June 28, July 7, July 11/July 18, and July 26, 2005. Results This study revealed that database content
inclusion in Google Scholar varies profoundly from database to database and from discipline to discipline. Great
disparities were discovered between Google Scholar’s coverage of freely accessible databases and
restrictedaccess databases, between Google Scholar’s coverage of single publisher databases and aggregator
databases, and between Google Scholar’s coverage of databases that offer open access journals and those
databases that do not.
Google Scholar coverage of the 47 databases examined in this study ranged from 6 . percent (Historical
Abstracts and IIMP) to 100 percent (ACM Digital Library, ComDisDOME, PubMed, and PubMed Central). Both
the mean and median values of Google Scholar coverage for all databases examined in this study were 60
percent. Mean scores of Google Scholar database coverage for all databases assigned to a particular discipline
category were calculated. These mean discipline category scores were seen to vary from 10 percent in the
humanities to 39 percent and 41 percent respectively in social sciences and education and 76 percent in
science and medicine. The databases within the multidisciplinary category had a mean Google Scholar
coverage score of 77 percent. The range of Google Scholar coverage scores was greatest for databases within
the science and medicine and social science discipline categories. For the 18 databases within the science and
medicine discipline, category coverage by Google Scholar ranged from 26 percent for GeoRef to 1OO percent
for ACM Digital Library, ComDisDOME, PubMed, and PubMed Central. For the seven databases within the
social sciences discipline category, Google Scholar coverage scores ran from 10 percent for ATLA Religion
Database to 64 percent for Criminal Justice Abstracts. For the five databases within the humanities discipline
category, Google Scholar coverage scores ranged from 6 percent for Historical Abstracts to 22 percent for
Philosopher’s Index. For the three databases within the education discipline category, Google Scholar coverage
ranged from 38 percent for Library Literature to 40 percent for Education Full Text and to 44 percent for the
ERIC database. For the majority of multidisciplinary databases, Google Scholar provided coverage for 80
percent or more of the databases, the exceptions being 68 percent for SpringerLink, 58 percent for Expanded
Academic ASAP, 30 percent for JSTOR, and 24 percent for SPORT Discus.
Databases in this study that provide open access journals, namely DOAJ, BioMed Central, Highwire Press, and
PubMed Central, all appeared to be well covered by Google Scholar. Indeed the discrepancy between coverage
of open access journal databases and all other databases in this study was quite pronounced, with the mean
score for Google Scholar coverage of open access journal databases being 95 percent and the mean score for
all other databases being 57 percent. This study would indicate that currently Google Scholar provides thorough
coverage of single publisher databases. In contrast, Google Scholar provides much less coverage of index and
aggregator databases, many of which are not freely accessible. Google Scholar’s coverage of the “free” Internet
is markedly superior to coverage of restricted or fee-based Internet resources. Twenty-one of the databases
studied were “free” Internet resources available to the general public. The mean score for Google Scholar
coverage of these freely accessible databases was 84 percent. In contrast, for the other 26 restricted access
databases, the mean score was 41 percent; and this score would have been only 39 percent if the database
ComDisDOME, a restricted access database whose journal article content appears to be primarily a subset of
PubMed, were removed from this calculation. Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and Foreign Language Bias Results
from the PsycINFO publication language study showed that, currently, Google Scholar has a pronounced bias
toward English language publications. Google Scholar coverage of PsycINFO, in general, was 48 percent;
Google Scholar coverage of English only PsycINFO titles was 68 percent, whereas Google Scholar coverage of
non-English PsycINFO titles was onlyl2 percent. Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and Publication Date Bias A
publication date bias in Google Scholar coverage of articles found in the PsycINFO database was also
apparent. Google Scholar coverage of PsycINFO for all publication dates was 48 percent, yet Google Scholar
coverage of PsycINFO was 60 percent for titles published in 1990, 83 percent for titles published in 2000, and
78 percent for titles published in 2004. When data were pooled from the PsycINFO English-only study, 48
percent of the 92 samples from years 1960 to 1980 was covered by Google Scholar, and Google Scholar
indexed only 20 percent of the 50 samples from pre-1960 PsycINFO English-only samples.
Upload Testing of Google Scholar As noted previously in the methodology, no BioMed Central records with a
load date after April 1, 2005 were found in Google Scholar at the inception of testing on June 27, 2005. A set of
35 titles was randomly selected in BioMed Central from a group of titles not yet appearing in Google Scholar on
June 27. This set of 35 titles was again checked against Google Scholar on June 30, July 7, and July 18, but
none of these titles were retrieved. Thus, a 12-week delay in uploading of new information grew to a maximum
of roughly 15 weeks before there was evidence of uploading activity between July 18 and July 26,2005. By July
26,34 of the 35 titles first sampled on June 27 were retrievable from Google Scholar. Monitoring of Google
Scholar updates for PubMed titles began on June 28 with PubMed offering titles with accession numbers as
high as 15981319, whereas Google Scholar offered PubMed titles with accession numbers as high as
15751150. A set of 30 titles was randomly selected from PubMed from a group of titles not yet appearing in
Google Scholar on June 28. Assuming that there were few gaps in the PubMed accession number sequence at
the time of testing on June 28,2005, there could have been as many as 230,000 records (1.4 percent of the
PubMed database) not yet uploaded into Google Scholar. This disparity between PubMed titles and Google
Scholar posting of PubMed titles grew to roughly 245,000 records by testing date-July 7 and to roughly 270,000
by July 18, 2005. As with BioMed Central, sometime between the July 18 and July 26 test dates additional
PubMed titles were added to Google Scholar. On July 26, 2005, 27 of the 30 randomly sampled titles were
retrievable from Google Scholar. Discussion The tests conducted in this study revealed a number of specific
strengths and weaknesses with the search engine Google Scholar in its current beta test phase. Coverage of
open access journals, freely accessible databases, and single publisher databases is very strong. Google
Scholar coverage of databases in the humanities and fine arts is quite poor. Coverage of databases in the
social sciences, education, and business is somewhat hitor-miss, with roughly 50 percent of the content in these
databases indexed by Google Scholar. A particular strength of Google Scholar appears to be its coverage of
scientific and medical literature. This might reflect an intended emphasis on the part of Google Scholar, or
perhaps this strong showing is simply the by-product of a preponderance of freely accessible records of
scientific and medical research. Although Google Scholar testing demonstrated strong coverage of literature in
the science and medicine category, there were some notable exceptions. Google Scholar only covered 26
percent of GeoRef, 42 percent of MathSciNet, 46 percent of CINAHL, 46 percent of Royal Society of Chemistry,
and 52 percent of AGRICOLA. Nonetheless, the perception that Google Scholar is a scientific literature
database is further enhanced by Google Scholar coverage of databases designated as multidisciplinary. Many
of the databases in the multidisciplinary category are primarily, though not exclusively, science databases,
namely Cambridge Journals, DOAJ, Ingenta, Oxford University Press, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Wiley
InterScience. Coverage by Google Scholar of these science-rich multidisciplinary databases alone was 86
percent. Google Scholar gleans much less content from those multidisciplinary databases that were less
focused on science. Google Scholar only contained 24 percent of SPORT Discus, 30 percent of JSTOR, and 56
percent of Expanded Academic ASAP. What do the results from this study of Google Scholar mean for both
researchers and information professionals? For those who enjoy a relative wealth of commercial databases, this
is a cautionary tale. Google Scholar is not yet the tool of choice for research in the humanities, education,
business, and social sciences. Coverage is poor to spotty within these fields of research. Coverage of non-
English literature is weak. Older material may well be missed, and the most current information is slow to arrive
on Google , Scholar’s doorstep. Still, Google Scholar does provide a possible alternative for unified searching of
scientific and medical literature with hyperlinks to the full text owned by t well-endowed institutions. For those
who languish in more information-poor environments, Google Scholar is a most welcome arrival, provided one
understands English. Coverage of less than 50 percent of a database is still preferable to no database access
at all, and occasionally Google Scholar hyperlinks do lead to full-text articles provided by open access journals.
Future Studies Google Scholar could render future studies such as this both unnecessary and obsolete, simply
by sharing a detailed description of its content collection methodology. Should such information be some time in
coming, the authors suggest a number of follow up studies to further define the behavior and attributes of
Google Scholar. The rate of Google Scholar uploading, barely touched upon in this study, could be monitored in
greater depth and breadth and for a much longer duration. The capabilities of the Google Scholar advanced
search option should be tested and analyzed. The strengths and limitations of the Google Scholar linking
services to full text could be considered. Studies of the “cited by” feature of Google Scholar and comparisons of
this feature to citation services offered by Web of Knowledge and Scopus would be most welcome. Finally, a
better understanding of the information gathering behavior of researchers is vital to further discussions of
Google Scholar and any other database. Surveys and studies that measure the attitudes and research
behaviors of established scholars and college students with respect to Google Scholar would be of great utility
to both database designers and information professionals. Conclusion The idiosyncrasies of Google Scholar
that were exposed as a result of this study should be considered with the acknowledgment that this database is
still in a beta test mode. Whatever weaknesses and strengths Google Scholar now possesses will undoubtedly
change as this scholarly search engine develops in the years to come. That said, many researchers are now, or
will soon be, regular users of Google Scholar, beta test notwithstanding, just as they are now regular users of
Google.11 If scholars intend to use Google Scholar, whether due to name recognition, the facile search
interface, the freely available “cited by” feature, or simply the lack of alternatives, they should understand this
search engine’s strengths and limitations. If information professionals intend to use, recommend, and advertise
Google Scholar, they, too, must be aware of the scope and capabilities of this search engine. This study
focused on Google Scholar content and not on the capabilities and functionality of the Google Scholar search
engine. Google Scholar may well contain a given record, indeed it may contain multiple variants of the same
record, but Google Scholar will only succeed if it can make its records both easy to find and easy to retrieve. Yet
even within this first year of its inception, Google Scholar already freely offers researchers and libraries a
database with great breadth and, within the fields of science and medicine, respectable depth. Though not
without flaws, this database provides a free “cited by” service with citation counts and hyperlinks to the citing
references. Google Scholar is working with libraries and library vendors to connect Google Scholar search
results to library-owned full text. Google Scholar offers a simple search interface that will, despite its
shortcomings, appeal to many researchers. Google Scholar will be a database to monitor, to study, and with
which to reckon. Sidebar This study revealed that database content inclusion in Google Scholar varies
profoundly from database to database and from discipline to discipline. Sidebar Google Scholar’s coverage of
the “free” Internet is markedly superior to coverage of restricted or fee-based Internet resources. Sidebar
Although Google Scholar testing demonstrated strong coverage of literature in the science and medicine
category, there were some notable exceptions. Footnote Notes 1. John Markoff, “Google Plans New Service for
Scientists and Scholars,” New York Times, November 18, 2004. 2. Jeffrey R. Young, “Google Unveils a Search
Engine Focused on Scholarly Materials,” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3, 2004, A34. 3. Carol
Tenopir, “Google in the Academic Library: Undergraduates May Find All They Want on Google Scholar,” Library
Journal 130, 2 (February 1, 2005): 32. 4. Jeffrey R. Young, “100 Colleges Sign Up With Google to Speed
Access to Library Resources,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 20,2005, A30. 5. Joann M. Wleklinski,
“Studying Google Scholar: Wall to Wall Coverage?” Online 29, 3 (May/June 2005): 22-6. 6. Jim Henderson,
“Google Scholar: A Source for Clinicians?” CMA/: Canadian Medical Association Journal 172,12 (June 7, 2005):
1549-50. 7. Peter Jacso, side-by-side2 Native Search Engines vs. Google Scholar (2005), http://www2.
hawaii.edu/~jacso/scholarly/side-by-side2.htm (accessed December 15, 2005). 8. Jacso, “Google Scholar
Beta,” Peter’s Digital Reference Shelf (December 2004), http: / / www.gale.com / servlet /
HTMLFileServlet?imprint=9999®ion=7&fileName= / reference/archive/200412/googlescholar.html (accessed
December 15, 2005). 9. Jacso, “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons,” Online Information Review 29, 2
(February 1, 2005): 208-14. 10. Martin Myhill, “Google Scholar,” Charleston Advisor 6, 4 (April 2005), http: / /
www. charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=225 (accessed December 14, 2005). 11. “Google is Top Search
Destination in US,” New Media Age (August 26, 2004): 10, available online by subscription to Expanded
Academic ASAP/INFOTRAC. AuthorAffiliation Chris Neuhaus is library instruction coordinator, University of
Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls; he may be contacted via e-mail at: chris.neuhaus@uni.edu. Ellen Neuhaus is
reference librarian and bibliographer, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls; she may be contacted via e-mail
at: ellen.neuhaus@uni.edu. Alan Asher is art and music librarian, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls; he
may be contacted via e-mail at: alan.asher@uni.edu. Clint Wrede is catalog librarian and bibliographer,
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls; he may be contacted via e-mail at: clint.wrede@uni.edu.
Subject: Online data bases; Digital libraries; Reference services
Company/organization: Google Inc; 518112
Publication title: Portal : Libraries and the Academy
Volume: 6
Issue: 2
Pages: 127-141
Number of pages: 15
Publication year: 2006
Publication date: Apr 2006
Year: 2006
Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press
Place of publication: Baltimore
Journal subject: Library And Information Sciences
ISSN: 15312542
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: Tables;Graphs;References
ProQuest document ID: 216166819
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/216166819?accountid=8289
Copyright: Copyright Johns Hopkins University Press Apr 2006
Last updated: 2011-08-30
Database: ProQuest Research Library
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
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. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216166819?accountid=8289;
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=The+Depth+and+Breadth+of+
Google+Scholar%3A+An+Empirical+Study&title=Portal+%3A+Libraries+and+the+Academy&issn=15312542&d
ate=2006-04-
01&volume=6&issue=2&spage=127&author=Neuhaus%2C+Chris%3BNeuhaus%2C+Ellen%3BAsher%2C+Ala
n%3BWrede%2C+Clint
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study
Bibliography
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 11:57
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Vine, Rita
Publication info: Journal of the Medical Library Association 94. 1 (Jan 2006): 97-99.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Vine reviews Google Inc’s Google Scholar database.
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full Text: Google Scholar. Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043; 650.253.0000;
fax, 650.253.0001; http://scholar.google .com; free Website. Nothing quite prepared the library world for the
introduction of Google Scholar in November 2004. In mere weeks, Google’s astonishing brand recognition and
promotional machine propelled Google Scholar into the public’s consciousness. Librarians-particularly medical
and science librarians-have been talking and writing about it ever since. Who would have thought that a
research database could create such a buzz? What exactly is Google Scholar? The parent company has been
typically coy with explanatory information on the product since its launch. Even now, much remains unknown
about its source content, indexing, or relevance algorithms. Google Scholar is a subset of the larger Google
search index, consisting of full-text journal articles, technical reports, preprints, theses, books, and other
documents, including selected Web pages that are deemed to be “scholarly.” Although Google Scholar covers a
great range of topical areas, it appears to be strongest in the sciences, particularly medicine, and secondarily in
the social sciences. The company claims to have full-text content from all major publishers except Elsevier and
the American Chemical Society, as well as hosting services such as Highwire and Ingenta. Much of Google
Scholar’s index derives from a crawl of full-text journal content provided by both commercial and open source
publishers. Specialized bibliographic databases like OCLC’s Open WorldCat and the National Library of
Medicine’s PubMed are also crawled. Since 2003, Google has entered into numerous individual agreements
with publishers to index full-text content not otherwise accessible via the open Web. Although Google does not
divulge the number or names of publishers that have entered into crawling or indexing agreements with the
company, it is easy to see why publishers would be eager to boost their content’s visibility through a
powerhouse like Google. Like the larger Google search engine index, Google Scholar is fast and easy to
search. It retrieves document or page matches based on the keywords searched and then organizes the results
using a closely guarded relevance algorithm. Because so much of the content of Google Scholar’s index comes
from licensed commercial journal content, most users will discover that clicking on a link in Google Scholar’s
search results may reveal only an abstract-not full text-accompanied by a pay-per-view option. Institutions can
configure Open-URL link resolvers, such as SFX, to authenticate users to provide access to full-text content that
is available through institutional subscriptions. The inadequacies of Google Scholar have already been well
documented in reviews [1,2]. These reviews focused on three major weaknesses of the tool: lack of sufficient
advanced search features, lack of transparency of the database content, and uneven coverage of the database.
Henderson’s review of Google Scholar demonstrated its significant limitations for clinician use [3]. Tests
conducted by Jacso showed that Google Scholar typically crawled only a subset of the full available content of
individual journals or databases [4]. In February 2005, Vine discovered that Google Scholar was almost a full
year behind indexing PubMed records and concluded that “no serious researcher interested in current medical
information or practice excellence should rely on Google Scholar for up to date information” [5]. With a simple,
basic search interface and only minimal advanced search features, Google Scholar lacks almost every
important feature of MEDLINE. It does not map to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH); does not permit nested
Boolean searching; lacks essential features like explosions, subheadings, or publication-type limits; and offers
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203472775?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Google%20Scholar&title=Journal%20of%20the%20Medical%20Library%20Association&issn=15365050&date=2006-01-01&volume=94&issue=1&spage=97&author=Vine,%20Rita
searchers no ability to benefit from the extraordinary indexing that the National Library of Medicine provides.
Google Scholar’s closest free Web competitor, the quasi-scientific search tool Scirus
from Elsevier, crawls a defined subset of free Web pages plus full-text content from Elsevier journals, patents,
preprints, and more. Unlike Google Scholar, the Scirus project team is quick, even eager, to disclose the
content of the Scirus database and regularly feeds new partner content into the database in its “About Us”
section [6]. Google Scholar is not designed for comprehensive research or clinical questions. However, it is still
a worthwhile and useful search tool, although a limited one. Much like the Google search engine, Google
Scholar is designed to find something good enough for the task at hand. So often, that task is not
comprehensive or exhaustive research that requires a turbo-charged database but is a senior high school
assignment, a college paper, or other thing that just needs to get done as painlessly as possible. Google
understands that most searchers are not interested in searching or learning complex search skills. They are
interested in finding something and finishing the task. While high-quality, comprehensive, and sophisticated
medical search resources have no substitute when the task calls for them, they are not always necessary. In
addition to being fast and easy, Google Scholar has some great features. It is cited by ×feature, which links a
result to other items in the Google Scholar database that reference the item, a quick and fast way to find
citations. Although it is not comprehensive, no other citation-linking tool in the marketplace is. Scholar’s great
breadth of coverage makes it a handy tool for searching those topics that do not instantly lend themselves to
specific subject indexes (e.g., “brain drain”). Like the Google main search index, Google Scholar is a handy tool
for verifying citations, extending the limits of PubMed’s Single Citation Matcher. Cyber sleuths can also use
Google Scholar to find a free Web version of an article that might have started out behind a publisher’s
authentication firewall but has been downloaded by someone and then put on a public Web server. There is
plenty to dislike about Google Scholar. Its total lack of transparency and disingenuous treatment of librarians’
concerns are especially irksome. For researchers, the growing strength of the Google Scholar brand may work
to skew impact factors of journals, artificially favoring those that rank more highly in Google Scholar. Time will
tell. Google Scholar has a place in medical libraries. It is a perfectly decent search tool for those who are
looking for quick answers and for questions where the outcome has little or no impact on clinical excellence.
Google knows what libraries have been reluctant to admit: that users love search appliances that are fast, easy,
and deliver the goods-or at least enough of them to satisfy their current information need. Plenty of information
needs do not require powerhouse tools like MEDLINE. Google, its subset of services like Google Scholar, and
many other “answer engines” on the Web have forced libraries to recommend tools that deliver quick and easy
answers for time-pressed users. To their credit, libraries are responding to the competitive pressure for
simplified retrieval by integrating selected free Web search tools like Google Scholar and Scirus into collections
of licensed indexes and databases Every medical librarian knows that “plug-in-the-key word-and-hope-for-the-
best” tools like Google Scholar are poor choices for serious search questions, such as clinical queries,
bibliographic reviews, comprehensive literature searches, or other questions that require a more sophisticated
approach. That is where the greatest challenge lies: How can librarians, with far fewer resources than Google,
succeed in getting the message out that, in many cases, easy is no substitute for good7. References
References 1. JACSO P. Google Scholar (redux). [Web document]. Jun 2005. [cited 10 Sep 2005].
Advisor [serial online]. 2005 Apr; 6(4). [cited 10 Sep 2005].
P. Side-by-side native search engines vs Google Scholar. [Web document]. 2005 Apr 22. [cited 10 Sep 2005].
indexing PubMed content. [Web document]. 2005 Rb 8. [cited 10 Sep 2005].
Search Portfolio Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Subject: Product reviews; Online data bases; Google Scholar
Company/organization: Google Inc; 518112
Product name: Google Scholar
Publication title: Journal of the Medical Library Association
Volume: 94
Issue: 1
Pages: 97-99
Number of pages: 3
Publication year: 2006
Publication date: Jan 2006
Year: 2006
Section: ELECTRONIC RESOURCES REVIEWS
Publisher: Medical Library Association
Place of publication: Chicago
Country of publication: United States
Journal subject: Medical Sciences, Library And Information Sciences
ISSN: 15365050
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Product Review-Mixed
Document feature: References
ProQuest document ID: 203472775
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/203472775?accountid=8289
Copyright: Copyright Medical Library Association Jan 2006
Last updated: 2012-07-24
Database: ProQuest Research Library
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Vine, R. (2006). Google scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(1), 97-99. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203472775?accountid=8289;
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Google+Scholar&title=Journal+
of+the+Medical+Library+Association&issn=15365050&date=2006-01-
01&volume=94&issue=1&spage=97&author=Vine%2C+Rita
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- Google Scholar
Bibliography
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
January 27 2013 12:06
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
Author: Worthen, Ben
Publication info: Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y] 17 Mar 2010: B.1.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Microsoft has financed its money-losing quest to take on Google in search with its cash. […] Apple has
used its reserves to develop the iPad and take aim at Google recently by acquiring a mobile-advertising
company. Because of their massive cash accumulation, these companies can afford to take risks that smaller
companies can’t at a time when the economy remains fragile.
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full Text: A handful of cash-rich companies are consolidating power in the technology industry, using their
wealth to expand into new businesses and making it harder for small and midsize competitors to break through.
Why the industry is evolving this way is rooted in balance sheets. Over the past two years, Apple Inc., Oracle
Corp., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and six other large tech companies have generated $68.5 billion in new
cash, compared with just $13.5 billion for the other 65 tech companies in the S&P 500 Index combined,
according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data provided by Capital IQ. The rich few are funding investments
at a time when many others have retrenched. Over the past year, Oracle paid $7.4 billion to get into the
hardware business by acquiring Sun Microsystems, and Dell Inc. bought Perot Systems to add technology
services. Cisco Systems Inc. spent more than $7 billion to acquire six companies. Frank Calderoni, Cisco’s
chief financial officer, says the company’s balance sheet “is a major competitive advantage for us.” Google,
meanwhile, has tapped its savings to fund moves into computer operating systems and mobile phones.
Microsoft has financed its money-losing quest to take on Google in search with its cash. And Apple has used its
reserves to develop the iPad and take aim at Google recently by acquiring a mobile-advertising company.
Because of their massive cash accumulation, these companies can afford to take risks that smaller companies
can’t at a time when the economy remains fragile. The result is a bifurcated tech landscape, says Erik
Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. “Cash
has become king to an even greater extent than in the past because of the credit crunch,” he says. “A company
with a lot of cash is in a disproportionately strong position now than it would be in normal times.” The
repercussions from the cash discrepancy are being felt throughout the industry. Some midsize tech companies
are giving up trying to compete with their larger rivals. “I’m not going to fight” being a mid-tier company, says
Enrique Salem, chief executive of security-software maker Symantec Corp., which has annual revenue of $6.1
billion and cash reserves of $2.6 billion. “It’s a losing proposition for me to try to catch up with Oracle,” which
had $20.8 billion in cash at the end of November. Others are gearing up to make their own acquisitions so as
not to be left behind. For example, online-software maker Salesforce.com Inc. nearly doubled its cash reserves
in January by taking on $575 million in debt that it says it will use in part for future expansion and acquisitions.
Other midsize tech companies, such as Ciena Corp., have recently scooped up smaller rivals to bulk up. The
concentration of cash taking place in tech isn’t happening in other sectors. From the end of 2007 to the end of
2009, the 10 richest tech companies increased their cash levels by 48% to $210 billion. The other 65 tech
companies listed in the S&P 500 upped their cash only 13% in the same period, to $118 billion. The upshot: The
gap between the two groups stood at a record. The gap would be even larger, except an accounting change
caused Apple to designate about $10 billion of its holdings as long-term investments. The imbalance is
changing how businesses behave. Both Cisco, which has more than $40 billion of cash reserves, and smaller
rival Juniper Networks Inc., with about $2.2 billion in cash, entered partnership talks last June with wireless
http://search.proquest.com/docview/399086976?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Gap%20Widens%20Between%20Tech%20Richest%20and%20the%20Rest&title=Wall%20Street%20Journal&issn=00999660&date=2010-03-17&volume=&issue=&spage=B.1&author=Worthen,%20Ben
technology maker Starent Networks Corp. In August, Cisco told Starent it wanted to acquire the company
outright Whereas a few years ago the two rivals might have been drawn into competitive bidding, this time
Starent’s board “concluded that the risk of Cisco terminating its discussions with Starent outweighed the likely
benefits” of soliciting a bid from another company, according to a regulatory filing. In October, Starent accepted
Cisco’s $2.9 billion offer. Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson says being at a disadvantage in acquisitions is par for the
course. “For midsize companies, it’s always difficult to break through with M&A because large companies will
always outbid them,” he says, adding he plans to grow Juniper organically. Some smaller tech companies that
have tried to make big acquisitions have been stymied. Storage company NetApp Inc. in May said it would
acquire software-maker Data Domain for $1.5 billion. Twelve days later, larger rival EMC Corp. offered $1.8
billion. After a bidding war, EMC, whose $6.7 billion war chest was more than twice NetApp’s, made a $2.2
billion offer that NetApp couldn’t match. “We can’t win bidding wars with people with deeper pockets,” says
NetApp CEO Tom Georgens. He says NetApp will acquire start-ups and companies that rivals don’t value as
highly, as well as use its cash to help weather tough times. Those smaller companies that do win bidding wars
take on increased risk. Networking-gear maker Ciena launched a bid in October for a unit of Nortel Networks
Ltd., a bid it eventually raised to $769 million. Ciena has about $1 billion in cash but approximately $800 million
of debt — a ratio far more skewed to debt than at large companies. “We have to take more risk” to compete with
the mega-caps, says Ciena CEO Gary Smith. “A large company can make a mistake in one of these
acquisitions and it isn’t going to be hugely impactful to them.” Ciena has no such luxury, he says. “Clearly, if we
get this wrong, it will not have a good outcome,” he says. Credit: By Ben Worthen
Subject: Competitive advantage; High tech industries; Cash management
Location: United States–US
Company/organization: Oracle Corp; 511210; Cisco Systems Inc; 334119, 511210
Classification: 8651: Computer industry, 9190: United States
Publication title: Wall Street Journal
Pages: B.1
Publication year: 2010
Publication date: Mar 17, 2010
Year: 2010
Publisher: Dow Jones&Company Inc
Place of publication: New York, N.Y.
Country of publication: United States
Journal subject: Business And Economics–Banking And Finance
ISSN: 00999660
Source type: Newspapers
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 399086976
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/399086976?accountid=8289
Copyright: (c) 2010 Dow Jones&Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Last updated: 2011-05-16
Database: ABI/INFORM Global
Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Worthen, B. (2010, Mar 17). Gap widens between tech richest and the rest. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/399086976?accountid=8289;
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Gap+Widens+Between+Tech+
Richest+and+the+Rest&title=Wall+Street+Journal&issn=00999660&date=2010-03-
17&volume=&issue=&spage=B.1&author=Worthen%2C+Ben
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
- Gap Widens Between Tech Richest and the Rest
Bibliography
